\nTHIRD REGIONAL REPORT \nbased on the results of long-term observation in the Volyn region \nof the elections of the President of Ukraine on January 17, 2010 \nperiod: January 18 – February 4, 2010 \n \nLong-term observers of the Civil Network OPORA and the Association of Young Reformers, in the status of journalists of the publication "Tochka Oporin,"collected information in five territorial election districts of the Volyn region. During this period, OPORA paid the most attention to facts of violations in the campaign activities of election process subjects, the work of district election commissions, and the procedure for forming voter lists. \n \nObservation conclusions: \n1. In the period between the votes of January 17 and February 7, the election headquarters of both candidates began to more actively use elements of "black PR" and unethical propaganda methods in their campaign work. \n2. In the Volyn region, cases of pressure on voters due to their political preferences have become more frequent, in particular through public condemnation and threats. \n3. The newly created district and precinct election commissions are mostly formed from experienced and proven individuals, which gives reason to hope that the organization of the repeat vote will take place at a qualitatively higher level than the vote of January 17, 2010. \n4. The imperfection of the procedure for accounting for decisions and corrections made by election commissions in voter lists during the updating of the State Register of Voters database may lead to the same errors and inaccuracies appearing in the new voter lists. \n5. The contradiction of various articles of the law and the tight deadlines for preparing for the repeat vote lead to violations of a number of norms of election legislation. \n \nRecommendations: \n1. To the election headquarters of candidates for the post of President of Ukraine: \n- stop distributing campaign materials containing information that offends the honor and dignity of opponents and produced in violation of election legislation; \n- stop inciting political hostility between voters who support different candidates and appeal to their supporters with a call to stop pressure on "dissenters"; \n- refrain from using members of election commissions in political "showdowns" by initiating openly political and conflictual issues for consideration by commissions, and instead provide members of election commissions with detailed explanations regarding proper compliance with the norms of election legislation. \n2. To district election commissions: \n- conduct briefing meetings with representatives of precinct election commissions, emphasizing the main errors and violations that occurred during the vote of January 17, 2010; \n- mobilize all members of district commissions to work on election day in order to promptly collect information about problems and promptly respond to them. \n3. To precinct election commissions: \n- when making decisions and performing any actions, be guided solely by the norms of the current Law of Ukraine "On Elections of the President of Ukraine," and not by personal experience or rumors. \n4. To observers and journalists: \n- organize the process of observing the activities of district election commissions and precinct election commissions of the region in order to prevent and not allow any, even minor, violations or falsifications. \n \n1. Campaign activities of election process subjects \nForms and methods of conducting the election campaign in the period after the vote of January 17 \nIn the period from the announcement of the repeat vote in the Volyn region, a campaign in support of both candidates began. Both headquarters actively use visual outdoor advertising media, in particular billboards and city lights. Less attention is paid to pasting campaign posters. In the last week of the elections, supporters of candidate Yu. Tymoshenko distributed campaign materials from the tents of the BYuT and NRU. Cases of door-to-door canvassing of voters (KVDD) by representatives of Yu. Tymoshenko were also recorded, who ask whether voters have made their choice and persuade them to vote for their candidate. Representatives of candidate V. Yanukovych are less active in conducting campaigning through tents. \nRepresentatives of candidate Yu. Tymoshenko actively work in Volyn with various social groups. Thus, on January 28, during events to honor the winners of the regional competition "Student of the Year - 2009," held with the support of the Lutsk City Council, the attending Deputy Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine M. Tomenko "praised" Yu. Tymoshenko and the actions of her government, and also noted that only thanks to the BYuT was a new law on expanding the rights of student self-government adopted. Before the start of this event, at the entrance to the hall, young people were handed campaign leaflets in support of Yu. Tymoshenko. Also, representatives of Yu. Tymoshenko's headquarters work specifically with representatives of public organizations of the region, who are invited to participate in the People's Assembly of Volyn and offered to become public assistants to the presidential candidate Yu. Tymoshenko (and in the future – assistants to President Yu. Tymoshenko). \nAlso, representatives of Yu. Tymoshenko use the state program for issuing state land acts for campaigning in rural areas. People's deputies or representatives of local BYuT branches usually take part in such events. \n Countering opponents: anti-campaigning, "black PR," spreading false information about a candidate, other methods of countering \nIn the Volyn region, an increase in cases of using "black PR" has been recorded. In particular, in settlements of the region, small stickers without source data are pasted, calling "Don't let the Donetsk bandits in" and "Yanukovych against the UPA." And in mailboxes in some buildings of Lutsk and other cities, leaflets about Yu. Tymoshenko being a "Jewess" have been scattered. \nWithout appropriate source data on the print run, place of printing, and person responsible for issuing the materials, stickers and leaflets in support of candidate Yu. Tymoshenko are distributed in NRU tents. \nAlso, campaigners of V. Yanukovych's headquarters distribute leaflets criticizing Yu. Tymoshenko and stating that she "lies" to voters. And in the party press of the VO "Batkivshchyna," [the opponent] is distorted and ridiculed \nPressure and obstruction of campaigning \nNo mass facts of obstruction of the work of campaigners or representatives of any candidate's headquarters have been recorded. However, isolated cases of pressure on supporters of one of the candidates have been recorded. In some villages of the region, members of precinct election commissions from candidate V. Yanukovych are subjected to public condemnation. \n \n2. Work of district election commissions \nQualitative and personal composition of district election commissions \nAccording to parts 5 and 6 of Article 85 of the Law of Ukraine "On Elections of the President of Ukraine," the CEC by its decision of January 27, 2010 No. 152 formed a new composition of district election commissions of territorial election districts for the elections of the President of Ukraine for the organization and conduct of the repeat vote on February 7, 2010. Accordingly, in the Volyn region, five district election commissions were formed in a new composition in TECs No. 19-23. All of them were formed in the maximum composition - 14 people, respectively 7 people from both candidates for the post of President of Ukraine. In three DECs, the chairpersons of the commissions represent candidate Yu. Tymoshenko, in two – candidate V. Yanukovych. The positions of secretaries in these DECs are occupied by representatives of the other candidate. It is characteristic that most members of the current DECs worked in previous compositions of the commission. The composition of commissions was most preserved in DEC TEC No. 19 (center in the city of Volodymyr-Volynskyi) and No. 20 (center in the city of Horokhiv) - out of 14 members of the commission, 10 worked previously, and the chairpersons of the DECs remained the same. In DEC TEC No. 21 (center in the city of Kovel), 9 people worked on conducting the elections on January 17; in DEC TEC No. 22 (center in the city of Lutsk) and No. 23 (center in the urban-type settlement of Manevychi) – 8 people. New individuals are responsible for organizing the work of the commission. It is interesting to note that most of the individuals who already had experience working in DECs represent the candidate for the post of President of Ukraine V. Yanukovych. Moreover, previously, in the previous compositions of DECs, they represented candidates S. Ratushniak, V. Protivsikh, M. Brodskyi, and others. Instead, many new individuals were submitted from candidate for the post of President of Ukraine Yu. Tymoshenko. \nOPORA considers such an approach to forming district election commissions to be correct and justified, since individuals who have already gained experience in organizing the elections on January 17 will be able to better organize work during the repeat vote. \nHowever, excessive politicization of district election commissions could hinder this. After all, equal representation of two fiercely opposing candidates can lead to deadlock situations - when the commission cannot adopt any decision. \nMaterial and technical support for the work of election commissions \nPremises for the work of district election commissions were provided as the same ones where previous compositions of DECs worked. Therefore, the level of material and technical support of DECs can be determined as satisfactory. \nAlthough local authorities should take care in the future about better preparation of premises and equipment for the work of election commissions. \nActivities of election commissions in exercising their powers \nGiven the contradictions in the legislation, based on part 9 of Article 85, DECs should have held their first meetings already by January 29, 2010, and not as determined by Article 28 – no later than the third day after formation (the reason for shifting this deadline is the need to accept submissions regarding candidates for the composition of PECs). All Volyn DECs coped with this task, holding their first meetings on January 28 and 29. In all cases, meetings of district election commissions were held in compliance with legal requirements, that is, with a quorum present and with the drawing up of meeting minutes. \nFormation of precinct election commissions \nThe first step that all district election commissions had to take was to receive from authorized persons of candidates for the post of President of Ukraine submissions regarding candidates for the composition of PECs. According to part 9 of Article 85 of the Law of Ukraine "On Elections of the President of Ukraine," these submissions had to be made by January 29 inclusive, although, according to part 10 of Article 85 of the Law, candidates for the post of President of Ukraine may submit new candidates for the composition of PECs until February 4 inclusive. \nEach candidate had the opportunity to propose 8 individuals to the composition of each PEC, which both headquarters fully took advantage of. No conflicts or misunderstandings were recorded during the submission of relevant proposals. \nBy February 1 inclusive, based on submissions made by candidates for the post of President of Ukraine, DECs formed new compositions of precinct election commissions. According to a preliminary analysis of the composition of newly created PECs, over 60% of members of precinct election commissions worked during the elections on January 17, 2010. Therefore, there is hope that such mandatory procedures as convening the first meeting of the commission, providing the voter list for the repeat vote for public review, notifying voters about the time and place of voting, receiving ballots, and preparing the premises for voting will be carried out by PECs in the shortest possible time and in compliance with legal norms. \n \n3. Formation of voter lists \nQuality of voter lists during the vote of January 17, 2010 \nAn important component of assessing the quality of the election process is assessing the quality of voter lists. As OPORA already noted earlier, despite the complex and painstaking work of the State Register of Voters maintenance departments, months of clarifying and reconciling information about voters, and a broad information campaign, voter lists during the vote on January 17, 2010 contained many inaccuracies and errors. The fault for this lies mostly not so much with the employees of the relevant register maintenance bodies as with the system and procedure for collecting and processing information on the basis of which personal information about voters is formed. Therefore, work on improving such an information base must necessarily be continued after the elections. \nIn previous reports, in particular those informing about the course of voting at polling stations on January 17, 2010, it was indicated that at many polling stations there were cases when voters residing in the territory of the corresponding administrative-territorial unit could not vote due to absence from voter lists. There were also facts when deceased persons, or persons who had left for permanent residence in another locality, were included in voter lists. Again, many voters noted inaccuracies in the spelling of their personal data, such as surname and first name, date of birth. Because of this, many misunderstandings and conflicts arose at polling stations. \nHowever, compared to the voter lists used in the parliamentary elections of 2006 and 2007, this year's voter lists were of better quality. Evidence of this is the much smaller number of citizens' appeals to local courts with claims regarding non-inclusion in voter lists. Thus, on the eve and on the day of voting - January 17, 2010, voters were included in voter lists on the basis of court decisions in Lutsk - over 170 people, in Novovolynsk and in the Ratniv district – over 20 people. In other cities and districts of the region, the number of such court decisions was less than 10. \nAlthough, it is worth noting that the number of citizens' appeals to courts could have been smaller in those settlements where precinct election commissions, on the eve and on the day of voting, themselves adopted decisions to include voters in voter lists. The reason for this was the ambiguity in the interpretation of the norms of election legislation by DECs and PECs. \nMany cases were recorded when PEC decisions to include voters in lists were made on the basis of oral appeals, or on the basis of written applications (although the law requires complaints) from voters and the presentation of a passport indicating the voter's registered address. If on the Saturday before the day of voting such PEC decisions were made at their meetings, then on Sunday such decisions were made either individually by the chairman and secretary of the commission, or by part of the commission members, but without convening a meeting. \nHaving made such decisions, PECs did not inform the State Register of Voters maintenance departments. Therefore, it is quite likely that some voters were able to vote twice: at the polling station where they were included in the voter list according to their voting address and at the polling station where the relevant PEC included them in the voter list on the basis of the voter's registered place of residence. And as is known from the Law of Ukraine "On the State Register of Voters," the concepts of voting address and registered place of residence of a voter may not coincide. Thus, for example, in the city of Lutsk, a criminal case was initiated regarding the fact of a voter voting at two polling stations: at a special polling station established in a medical institution (where the voter was staying) and at an ordinary polling station (where the voter resides). \nMore such facts could have been detected by the State Register of Voters maintenance departments during the production of the voter list for the repeat vote. After all, according to CEC Resolution No. 112 of January 19, 2010, register maintenance departments should have verified the information received from DECs about voters included in the clarified voter list at an ordinary polling station on January 17, 2010, and about voters regarding whom changes were made to the clarified voter list. However, an analysis of information from most State Register of Voters maintenance departments showed that: \n-\tmany PECs did not prepare such information; \n-\ta significant part of PECs did not transmit such information to DECs; \n-\tsuch information was compiled without compliance with the relevant procedure. \nBecause of this, many DECs, even upon opening packages with voter lists, did not find the necessary information there. \nIn addition, due to the very short period allotted for processing such information, many register maintenance departments simply physically did not have time to make the relevant changes regarding voters' personal data in the state register. Because of this, a significant number of inaccuracies remained unchanged in the voter lists for the repeat vote. \nWork of State Register of Voters maintenance departments \nMost State Register of Voters maintenance departments approached the task assigned to them quite conscientiously and diligently and carried out large-scale work to identify errors and inaccuracies in the voter register. However, significant differences in the databases used by various government bodies and institutions, very tight deadlines of the election campaign, and in some places significant passivity of voters themselves led to the fact that voter lists are still imperfect. \nHowever, if the work of register maintenance departments in fulfilling their tasks can be assessed as satisfactory, then in matters of cooperation with the public, in particular with the media, some State Register of Voters maintenance departments took a strange position – we provide no information. By such actions, register maintenance department employees grossly violate the rights of journalists. \nAssessment of the use of the AITS "State Register of Voters" \nThe commissioning of the automated information and telecommunications system "State Register of Voters," despite all complaints and existing shortcomings of the system, is assessed by OPORA as a positive step. According to observers, the full use of the Law of Ukraine "On the State Register of Voters" was the main positive innovation in this election campaign, given the imperfection of the election law itself. The fears and outright provocative statements of certain politicians that the State Register of Voters was not ready for work were greatly exaggerated. The use of the State Register of Voters during this election campaign showed that only systematic work with such a large volume of information, which is personal information about voters, can bring a positive result. \nOPORA believes that the practice of compiling voter lists on the basis of information from the State Register of Voters should be preserved and extended to all types of elections and referendums that may be organized both at the national and local levels. \n