Subscribed trick

How for opposition candidates they created a barrier in the form of "BAZ FMS"

The “checking signatures” (intentionally take these words in quotation marks) of candidates for deputies of the Moscow City Duma in the last week, the normal court and the prosecutor’s office would have every reason to qualify under Art. 141 of the Criminal Code - the obstruction of the exercise by citizens of their electoral rights, and committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy.

Thousands of voter signatures collected by candidates in difficult conditions are marked either on the basis of the FMS bases (where much is either outdated or inaccurate), or on the basis of “graphological examinations”, with unusually ease of fake signatures.

A lot of famous people - starting with one of the authors of the Constitution, Professor Viktor Sheinis and Professor of the Higher School of Economics and Professor Elena Lukyanova and ending with the creator of Dissernet Andrei Zaknakin, as well as ordinary citizens find that they do not exist: their signatures in support of the nomination of candidates are declared “inaccurate”.

But neither they nor the candidates can prove anything - the election commission believe in a piece of paper, not a person. And they refuse to register with independent candidates: Sergey Mitrokhin and Dmitry Gudkov, Elena Rusakova and Ilya Yashin, Andrei Babushkin and Lyubov Sobol, Kirill Goncharov and Ivan Zhdanov.

“No legal tools are valid. These episodes will still go down in history as cases of glaring state crook, ”says Ilya Shablinsky, professor of law and member of the HRC.

Everything that happens, alas, is not new. We saw exactly the same absurd theater in 2007 in St. Petersburg, when the Yabloko party was shot (and removed) from the elections to the Legislative Assembly, trying to please the governor Valentina Matvienko. It is worth replacing the word "Petersburg" with "Moscow" - and the similarity will become almost absolute.

Then, 12 years ago, having collected about 40 thousand signatures, we saw some “FMS tables”, according to which supposedly part of the information about the signed voters were erroneous. A selective check - according to the passports of those voters who managed to quickly find - showed that not information about voters, but the “tables” themselves are erroneous. Often - anonymous, not even containing the names of the party, whose signature sheets were “checked”. But the Gorizbirk refused to exclude the signatures listed on these anonymous “tables” from among the defective.

Another part of the signatures was declared “inaccurate” on the basis of the conclusion of the forensic and forensic center of the Central Internal Affairs Directorate of St. Petersburg.

Calculations showed that each of the experts “checked” from 800 to 1000 signatures per day, having from 30 to 40 seconds for checking one signature.

It is impossible to do this work in qualitatively - but it was precisely its results that the election commission unconditionally believed.

We submitted the data of an independent handwriting study, which refuted the conclusion of the ECC. But the commission did not recognize him under the pretext that it was not fulfilled by the state body.

And where else was it to go if the “alternative” state body that could conduct an examination does not exist in principle?

Finally, when citizens who were ready to personally confirm the authenticity of their “rejected” signatures came to Gorizbirk, they were not believed: the commission said that they were “enough to conclude specialists”. The same was repeated in the Central Election Commission.

According to the results of these elections - when it was not possible to achieve justice anywhere - where we could, explained that a punitive, in fact, system was created. That the electoral rights of candidates and citizens supporting them are limited outside the judicial procedure, with the actual “presumption of guilt” of the party, which must prove that the signatures presented to it are valid - instead of the election commission, if it has doubts, proved in court that the signatures are invalid.

That experts do not consider it necessary to give reasoned conclusions about the reasons that made them announce the signatures “defective,” this is a characteristic sign of extrajudicial, in fact, reprisals.

And that this system allows you to remove any objectionable party from the elections, which, in principle, cannot “justify”, because the commission does not accept any evidence of its “innocence”.

Unfortunately, the public reaction then, 12 years ago, turned out to be extremely weak: no mass indignation happened.

The “Yabloko” tried to explain that the “refusal experiment” conducted on it could affect everyone - but neither experts nor the opposition demanded the complete abolition of the “subscription mechanism” or its cardinal change.

Today, the same “thunder” struck in Moscow: it turned out that heroic (without jokes) efforts to collect signatures can be crossed out by inspection, who, moreover, have no responsibility for their actions.

I hope that it will be possible to restore justice in Moscow - unlike the many years ago in St. Petersburg.

I have been repeating for many years: the “signature mechanism” should either be canceled or reduced the number of necessary signatures to a minimum.

Collect these signatures through the public services portal - then their authenticity will be ensured. Return the electoral deposit (in a reasonable amount) - as an alternative to signatures. To release political parties from any restrictions in the nomination of candidates - after all, the parties are created for this.

Well, of course, those who are to blame for the mentioned Article should be punished. 141 of the Criminal Code.

“Handwriting”, dashingly marriage signatures for the opposition, “experts” checking data on voters on the FMS bases curved, and members of the commissions, refusing this basis in registration. One has only to create a precedent - and the consequences will not slow down to affect.