SUPPORT. Operational report on the results of the analysis of the CEC decision on the formation of constituencies

INTRODUCTION

The decision of the Central Election Commission, which formed 225 single -member constituencies, was approved in accordance with the current Law of Ukraine “On Elections of People’s Deputies”. Opora notes that the commission formed districts, following the principle of equal number of voters in each of them, and took into account in most cases the limits of territorial-administrative units. The CEC immediately released a resolution with all the applications on April 28.

According to the analysis of the above decision, the support notes that the proposed approach to the formation of individual districts can complicate the organization of elections. Attorial geography calls into question the realization of the principle of equal opportunities for all candidates and parties. Unfortunately, the current legislation does not establish clear criteria for the formation of districts, and the consideration of the bill “On the territorial organization of elections and referendums” is slowed. The support also notes that the public had no factual opportunity to influence the process.

Conclusions

1. The Opora Civic Network analyzed the decision of the CEC №82 of 28.04.2012 “On the formation of single -mandate constituencies on a permanent basis within the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, oblasts, cities of Kyiv and Sevastopol”. The support notes that the corresponding process is completed in the law. Observers also congratulate the commission’s transparency on an urgent publication on the official website of the text with all applications.

2. All constituencies are formed in compliance with the principle of equal number of voters, and the number of each of them does not exceed the permissible error of 12%. In most cases, the CEC took into account the administrative-territorial division in the regions.

3. At the same time, the Opora Civic Network is concerned about the potential threats that may arise as a result of the territorial organization of elections in individual districts, in particular, complications of election organization and non -compliance with the principle of equal opportunities for all candidates and parties:

– Separate newly formed districts are much larger in length and area compared to your 2002 sample. Compliance with the principle of equality of voters without taking into account the geographical or administrative features of the region led to atypical election geography of individual districts;

– The logic was broken in the formation of districtsin which the boundaries, administrative centers and the previously indivisible settlements have been broken unreasonably;

– Cases are not uncommon the formation of constituencies from non -controversial territories Or administrative units, the transport connection between which runs through another district.

4. Anxiety is caused by cases where political motives are traced in the formation of constituencies with atypical configuration. In particular, the formation of the district coincides with the preliminary political activity of the candidate or, on the contrary, unpredictably breaks the territory where a high -ranking candidate has worked for a long time.

5. The Opora Civic Network believes that the introduction of a mixed election system with a majority component has led to ambiguous approaches in the formation of districts in individual regions. Direct fuses could be:

– clarity of the rules of the profile law on the territorial organization of elections and referendums with a wide range of criteria for the formation of districts;

– Public consultations in the regions to determine the boundaries of districts.

Recommendations

1. Opora emphasizes that the issue of formation of permanent constituencies should be regulated by a separate special Law “On Territorial Organization of Elections and Referendums”, the project of which has been under consideration of parliament for several years.

2. The number of criteria that must be applied to the formation of constituencies must be increased to the maximum. In particular, take into account the principle of territorial unity and maximum compactness of electoral units.

3. The process of developing boundaries of districts must take place taking into account proposals and for real mechanisms of public participation.

Formation of districts with excess area and length

In some cases, following the principle of equal number of voters, the CEC did not pay attention to the geographical and administrative features of the regions. As a result, some newly formed constituencies are much larger in length and area than districts formed in 2002. This will significantly complicate the administration of elections in such districts.

For example, in the Donetsk region the district №60 with a center in Volnovakha is formed in a new format. It includes five rural areas of the region: Volodarsky, Volnovaksky, Telmanivsky, Novoazovsky, May Day. Thus, the total area of ​​the new district is 6 251 km², which will cause problems with the transportation of election documentation, direct communication between the DEC and PEC, the campaign by candidates. And in the Kirovograd region the boundaries of three constituencies (№100, 101, 103) changed. As a result, they also became less compact and more stretched geographically. For example, in the constituency # 100, two former districts were replaced by Dobrovelichkivsky and Vilshansky. Observers believe that the proposed innovations are not justified, because by preliminary distribution, the number of voters also did not exceed the norm.

The division of settlements and a substantiated change of boundaries of districts

OPORA observers also revealed the facts of unjustified assignment of sections of one settlement to two different districts. Changes in boundaries and centers of districts are often unjustified.

For example, in the Poltava region, the CEC’s decision “breaks” the Lubensky district between the two electoral districts, although in the number of voters it could completely enter the district # 148 (Lubny). In the Poltava region, the territory of Kremenchuk was distributed between the two election districts № 146 (Kremenchuk) and №150 (Komsomolsk), although the number of voters allowed to form a separate district in Kremenchuk. Instead, in Sumy region (district # 160), the district center was moved from Konotop to Shostka, although it is difficult to find any arguments in favor of this decision. In Transcarpathia, the centers of districts were also changed: from Beregov and Rakhov to Vinogradov and Tyachev. In both cases, local supports associate the above rotation with political motives.

The formation of districts from non -controversial territories

There are cases of formation of constituencies from non -core territories, or territories, the transport connection between which through other districts. This will significantly complicate the process of transmitting election documentation in between DECs and PECs, the organization of the election campaign by candidates.

Such construction of the district is recorded in VO No. 172 of Kharkiv region, in Donetsk region (50, 52, 53). For example, within the district No. 61 (Starobesheve village), Snizhne is separated from the main part of the district, which will force the PEC to provide logistics or transportation of election documentation through the territory of the district №54. An example of how different parts of the district that do not border between each other are district # 55 with a center in the Makiivka Donetsk region. Due to the fact that the district has territorial breaks of election commissions from Zhdanivka and Kirovske, which also belong to this district, will be forced to pass through district # 54 (Shakhtarsk) every time. And the Kyiv-Svyatoshinsky district was broken down between the district № 91 (Makarov town) and No. 95 (Irpin), and Bucha (Kyiv-Svyatoshinsky district) is completely detached from the district and is part of the district from Slavutich and Ivankivsky, which are geographically located in the “distant” region.

In the Luhansk region, entire districts are built from anklavors. For example, constituency No. 112 includes 4 such cities: Rubizhne, Bryanka, Kirovsk, Pervomaisk. The distance from the rammer to the line 140 km. To carry ballots from a large number of polling stations in Bryanka will be through the centers of 2 other districts (Severodonetsk VO No. 106 and Lysychansk VO No. 107). Similar examples have been found in Cherkasy region. In particular, in the district No. 195 with the center in the city of Cherkasy, Drabivsky, Chernobayevsky, Chyhyryn districts are territorially separated from the Sosniv district of the city. Such division is unjustified, because it does not take into account either social or economic ties.

Political influence on the formation of districts

The analysis of the CEC’s decision and information on the election activity of potential candidates showed that in some cases the formation of a district within new limits coincides with the map of actions of active politicians.

Thus, the formation in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea of ​​the New District # 8 with a center in the village of Soviet directly “coincided” with the field of activity of the former speaker of the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea Boris Deich. The newly formed district brought together Belogorsk and Soviet districts, as well as Sudak, in which a member of the Party of Regions has considerable authority and some influence. In the Vinnytsia region, the formation of 256 km stretched. The border with Moldova district №16 also coincided with the boundaries of districts, in which Igor Kaletnik, Head of the Customs Service of Ukraine, shows his election activity.

In the Donetsk region, a number of politicians began a campaign among voters. For example, the People’s Deputy of Ukraine Denis Omelyanovich for a long time carried out election agitation in the territories that went to the newly formed district # 49 with a center in Konstantinovka. Although in 2002 the configuration of the districts was different. In addition, Denis Omelyanovich carries out active economic activity in the district where the firm close to it.

A similar situation has occurred with constituency # 52 in Donetsk region. The newly formed district combined different territories that coincided with the boundaries of the People’s Deputy of Ukraine, a member of the Party of Regions Igor Skin. The paradox of this situation is that a year ago, a deputy in the comments of the media spoke about the number and boundaries of his future constituency, long before its official creation.

In the Ivano-Frankivsk region it is also possible to compare the newly formed district № 89 with the center in Snyatyn (Kosivsky, Verkhovyna and Snyatyn districts) with the activities of the People’s Deputy from the Party of Regions Vasyl Chudnov. He actively receives citizens, makes gifts, organizes concerts, and on party portals is officially reported “work in the district”.

In the Sumy region, the boundaries of the newly formed districts were coincided with settlements, where the deputy chairman of the regional council Oleg Boyantsev and the People’s Deputy of Ukraine Andriy Derkach were agitation.

Distribution of districts in the Kherson region to the 186 district (Tsyurupinsk) attributed all districts in which in the past elections a confident victory was won by the Party of Regions, while the 185 district (Kakhovka) was attributed to several districts, which mostly cast votes for the CPU.

The formation of new boundaries of the district will harm individual politicians. For example, uniting in district # 12 of the Vinnytsia city and part of Vinnytsia district may weaken Petro Poroshenko’s starting positions. In Transcarpathia, the distribution of districts can also worsen Victor Baloha and his supporters.

The city of Stakhanov of the Luhansk region of the CEC was divided into two parts. This can significantly interfere with the campaigns of a potential non -partisan candidate Sergei Shakhov, who lost the monolithic of the territory where he had significant support among voters. In the Cherkasy region, the division of districts, according to the local observers of OPORA, will not facilitate the campaigns of such politicians as Sergey Odarych and Bogdan Gubsky.