Subscribing and testing the system

A scandal with refusals in registering in the Moscow City Duma to a large number of iconic candidates requires us to carefully take a closer look at how the registration was held, and first of all, checking the signature sheets in support of the nomination of candidates. This article is devoted to this.

General and political context

Elections to the Moscow City Duma are unique in that the significant number of candidates, and among them the most powerful, had to collect voter signatures. Since 2004, those who are nominated from parliamentary parties have been released by the law of the collection of signatures. Later, the list of parties-landlords changed, but in the current elections, only four parliamentary parties have a privilege again.

However, in the 2014 elections, the Yabloko party also had a benefit. In those elections, United Russia nominated candidates from most districts (29), and only 10 districts came from self -nominates supported by the mayor. In other words, then in most districts there were five candidates registered without collection of signatures.

This time, all administrative candidates preferred self -nomination, and Yabloko has no benefit. At the same time, the municipal elections of 2017 showed that the main opposition force is not the Communist Party, and even more so not the LDPR with “fair Russia”, but not very unified, but able to consolidate a group of civilian activists, associated with the Yabloko party, the teams of Alexei Navalny, Dmitry Gudkov and other politicians (I.V. Yashin, Yu. E. Galyamin, K.S. Yankauskas and others).

In total, 426 candidates nominated in these elections. Of these, 131 - from three parliamentary parties with a benefit; Only one candidate has left this group, 130 are registered. 107 candidates come from parties that do not have benefits, 188 preferred self -nomination. These 295 candidates for registration had to collect signatures - 3% of the number of voters in the district. The absolute number of required signatures varied from 4354 to 5315. The law allows to submit to the district election commission (OIK) a signature with an excess of not more than 10% of the required number. Candidates sought to collect their maximum number, but not everyone succeeded.

In total, the OIK submitted documents for registration of 160 candidates. However, 16 of them passed a deliberately insufficient number of signatures - they received a guaranteed refusal. Thus, OIK had to check the signature sheets of 144 people.

As a result, 103 candidates were registered according to signatures, and 57 received refusals-16 due to the insufficient number of submitted signatures and 41 according to the results of the check of signature sheets.

However, behind this seemingly prosperous statistics, a very noticeable political context is hidden. All administrative self-nominates were safely registered, except for two: football player D.O. Bulykin and artist A. A. Sokolov moved from the 43rd district and submitted documents late after refusing to participate in the elections of A.K. Federmeser. Of the 41 candidates from the Communist Party, the Communists of Russia (KPKR) registered 32.

At the same time, out of 19 candidates who were declared as “independent” (I prefer to call them “non -playing opposition” or “civil asset”), only six were registered (one of them was later removed by court decision). Of these six, only the former deputy of the Moscow City Duma, the Commissioner for the Rights of the Child in Moscow, the apple tree E. A. Bunimovich, is quite known. At the same time, the former deputies of the State Duma G.V. Gudkov, D. G. Gudkov and S. S. Mitrokhin received refusals in registration (he later managed to achieve registration after a month of struggle), heads of municipalities E. L. Rusakov and I. V. Yashin, municipal deputies A.V. Grandushkin, A. A. Bryukhanov, Yu. E. Galyamin and K. S. Yankenskas, plus the plus who received sufficiently received sufficiently received enough High results in the elections to the Moscow State Duma and State Duma K. A. Goncharov, as well as the famous associates of Navalny I. Yu. Zhdanov and L. E. Sobol.

Six more municipal deputies can be added to this list, including the head of the municipality of E. A. Ignatov (elected by the deputy from United Russia). In general, it is worth noting that the success of passing the signature registration filter among municipal deputies was lower than among candidates who are not, which is clearly abnormal.

How to check the subscription sheets

Federal Law No. 67-ФЗ (“On Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Rights to Participate in the Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation”) allows the election commission to check either all submitted signatures or selectively (at least 20% of the required number). Moscow election commission checked all signatures; As I understand it, this was the recommendation of MGIK. Thus, 144 candidates had to verify about 700 thousand signatures.

In principle, checking all signatures is a more reliable way. But only when there are not many of them. However, a few years ago I discovered a paradox: where there are few signatures, they often make a selective check, and where there are a lot, they check everything. There can be no suspicion that this is done intentionally: when many signatures are rejected, it is more difficult for a candidate to beat them.

Another nuance. The basis for refusing to register is a violation of at least one of the two norms (paragraph 24 of Article 38 of the Federal Law-67), acting, which was, which was, which was the check, selective or continuous. Firstly, the marriage should be no more than 10% of the signatures selected for verification (subparagraph “G.1”). Secondly, the total number of signatures recognized as valid should be at least the number of required (subparagraph “d”), that is, those very 3% of the number of voters in the district.

Thus, in the case of passing signatures with excess during a continuous check, the permissible share of the marriage is less than 10% of the total: for example, for those who submit signatures to the maximum, it is equal to 10% of the required number of signatures divided by 110%, a total of 9.09% of the total number of provided. For those who have not presented the maximum, the permissible share will be even less: for example, with an excess of 5%, it is 5%: 105% = 4.8%.

Arithmetic suggests that with selective verification, subparagraph “D” matters only in those rare cases when an excess of signatures is small enough. For example, the candidate must provide 5,000 signatures and handed over 5050. We conduct a selective audit. We take 20%, i.e. 1000 signatures. Suppose, of which 60 defective, i.e., less than 10%. Nevertheless, the candidate will be denied registration, since the actual signatures are already obviously no more than 4990. If the conditional candidate passed the signature without excess, then both with a continuous and in selective verification, he will be refused even with one rejected signature.

All rejected signatures are divided into two categories - invalid and inaccurate. Inaccurate are, in fact, falsified signatures, that is, signatures made on behalf of one person with another person.

The grounds for recognizing the signature invalid are listed in 15 paragraphs of the Law. However, in fact, there are more grounds than 15. For example, paragraph 8 of Moscow Law contains seven separate grounds at once. In paragraph 6 - two bases, but they differ in the method of identification. The grounds are very diverse - from the signatures of persons who do not have active suffrage in this district, to minor errors in the design.

Checking the signature sheets actually consists of three parts. The first part can do any rather competent member of the election commission. This is an audit for the completeness of information about voters, the presence of active suffrage in the district, checking the form of the subscription sheet and how it is certified; Verification of dates - whether signatures were collected after payment of signature sheets before their certification, etc.

The second part is a verification of the correctness of information about voters and the existence of voters who put signatures. First, they look at the voters register (i.e., according to GAS "Elections"). If a person is not found there or some inconsistencies are found, a request is made to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In response, the Ministry of Internal Affairs sends a certificate, and if the discrepancy is confirmed, such a certificate is the basis for recognizing the signature invalid.

The third part is a check by experts-drawers. They can reject a signature on one of three grounds. Firstly, to recognize her unreliable, that is, performed by another person. Secondly, to reveal that the date of entry of the signature was affixed not by the voter’s hand. Thirdly, that the data on the voter is not entered by the voter himself and not the signature collector (this is also the basis for recognizing the signature invalid).

Experts have long been worried about the question: what can be identified using such checks? Obviously, errors associated with the inaccurate of collectors and the candidate’s headquarters are found. Mistakes can be rude, but often quite excusable in the conditions of manifest and exorbitant number of required signatures.

But can the check identify falsification, signing signatures? Probably, maybe, but only when such a drawing is done unprofessional and/or on the basis of an outdated database. Indeed, over time, some voters die, move, change passports. And the more time has passed since the download of the database, the more such inaccuracies.

But if falsifiers have access to the same database, according to which the check is then conducted, then there may not be inaccuracies at all. Moreover, given that the database itself may contain errors, with honest collection of signatures of inconsistencies, there may be more than when drawing on the current database.

As for the verification of handwriters, it is almost impossible to identify inadequate signatures in this way, since they have no voter handwriting samples. And, as experience shows, for the most part they marry signatures on the basis of an unacceptable entry of the date. And this, in turn, is done as follows: there are chains of dates recorded by the same handwriting, and it is stated that they are introduced by one face. Next, either all signatures with these dates, or all, except one, are rejected.

But here questions arise. Many people write the numbers the same way. With what degree of reliability can the dates recorded with one hand be detected? Especially when it comes only about a pair of dates in one chain. But the main thing is that handwriting in practice does not need any justification of their so -called conclusions. And they are content with completely unfounded statements that such dates are made with one hand. And such unfounded statements are accepted by election commission as immutable truth. Which creates almost unlimited possibilities for arbitrariness.

How they checked the signature sheets in the district commissions

The results of the check of signature sheets and the subsequent registration of candidates caused almost universal bewilderment and indignation of those who know the Moscow situation. Refusals in registration were received by people who are quite famous and popular, the collection of signatures of which was quite noticeable. And at the same time, little -known candidates were registered, in respect of whom there are great doubts that they really collected signatures.

My survey among experts showed that two hypotheses are most popular: 1), many registered candidates were checked very hackshore, casually; 2) undesirable candidates (and this category includes not only opposition, but also named the United Russia, who could take away the votes from the candidates supported by the mayor's office), the signatures were checked with addiction, and many signatures were rejected completely illegally.

It is not easy to check these hypotheses, since there is no way to carry out an independent check of signatures of both categories of candidates. We have to use indirect information. In particular, one of the arguments in favor of the second hypothesis can serve as the results of repeated checks in the MGIK and the CEC, which will be discussed in the next section.

And in this section we will analyze the results of the checks conducted in the OIK. Here, too, it is necessary to immediately note the shortage of information. In the decisions of the OIK on the registration of candidates, there is no information on the results of inspections of their signatures. The OIK decisions on the refusal of registration have a total number of rejected signatures, but there is no decryption - on what grounds how many signatures are rejected.

Here, court decisions provided great assistance. A number of registered candidates (mainly from the Communist Party) filed claims with a demand to cancel the decisions on the registration of their rivals. I found 33 such claims on the Moscow City Court website, and in most of them the signature checks were disputed. True, in some court decisions, only the number of invalid and inaccurate signatures was provided, but many decisions also have a detailed decoding.

In addition, I managed to get from 15 candidates or their associates (including from three registered) copies of the protocols for checking their signature sheets. All these data together served as the basis for analysis.

I'll start with the total number of rejected signatures. I have such data for 73 candidates (that is, approximately half of those who were checked by signatures).

The diagram shows the frequency of the values ​​of the shares of rejected signatures, divided into single -percent intervals, for 60 candidates who have a share of marriage less than 22%. It can be seen that the diagram breaks up into four clusters. In the first cluster, there are 21 candidates with a degree of marriage of less than 4% (it is worth noting six candidates with a share of a marriage of less than 1% - these are administrative self -nominates A.I. Moliev and L. I. Gusev, candidate from the Rodina party V.V. Proshik, candidates from the KPKR V.A. Gogolev, D. A. Zakharov and P. S. Fedorov). The second cluster has nine candidates with a degree of marriage between 6 and 9%. The third cluster - 12 candidates with a degree of marriage from 11 to 15%. Finally, the fourth cluster - 13 candidates with a degree of marriage from 16 to 22% (Fig. 1).

Such multi -phaseness can be considered an indicator of artificiality, a certain task of the verification result.

Decoding - how many signatures on what grounds are rejected - are there for 35 candidates (15 more each one is known only to divide into false and invalid signatures). Data on these 35 candidates are given in the table below. For greater clarity, all rejected signatures are divided into three groups: 1) the identified OIK (designated in the table as “OIK”); 2) rejected on the basis of a certificate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on the non -compliance of data on the voter (designated as “Ministry of Internal Affairs”); 3) identified by handwriters (designated as “handwriting”).

Table. Three groups of rejected signatures from different candidates

* KPKR - Communist Party Communists of Russia; RAPZ - Russian Ecological Party "Green"; "Adm." - Self -nominates supported by the mayor; "Oppos." - Self -nominates from the opposition pool; "myself." - Self -nominates not related to two of the above categories.

For most registered candidates in all three categories, a small number of signatures are rejected. In relation to candidates who have received refusal, the situation is different. For example, in I.V. Yashin and L. E. Sobol, OIK actually rejected a small number of signatures - the main emphasis was on the Ministry of Internal Affairs and handwriters. Yes, and D. G. Gudkov and I. Yu. Zhdanov’s signatures, rejected by OIK, had not many. In other cases of signatures rejected by OIK, much more, but on various grounds. So, K. S. Yankauskas 577 signatures is rejected as allegedly collected before payment of signature sheets - the candidate claims that the OIK replaced the document on payment of signature sheets, presenting a false with a later date. In E. A. Ignatova and E. L. Rusakova, a significant part of the signatures is rejected due to the incorrect design of the list of collectors, and Rusakova’s wine completely lies at the notary. As later explained to the CEC, the same notary public incorrectly issued lists of collectors and other candidates, but OIK did not make such claims to them. In Yu. A. Serebryanskaya, OIK got more than two thousand signatures due to the imprisonment of the area in the address of the collectors-then the MGIK later recognized all these signatures as valid.

With regard to the examination of handwriting, it is immediately necessary to give detailed explanations. Handwriters can recognize the signature either inaccurate (if they determine that it is performed with the other hand), or invalid according to one of the two grounds - the signature date was written not by the voter’s hand, or the data on the voter was not entered by the voter or the collector.

At the same time, on the latter basis, signatures (422) were rejected only by one candidate - a self -nominated man in the district No. 30 O.K. Musatov. As for inaccurate signatures, out of 50 candidates about which there is such information, 26 did not find them. The remaining 24 candidates of inaccurate signatures are from 1 to 475.

But what is important. В двух случаях (К. В. Лисица, округ № 33, и И. В. Яшин, округ № 45) МГИК, рассматривая жалобу кандидата, переквалифицировала недостоверные подписи в недействительные, поскольку выяснилось, что они забракованы по основанию несобственноручного проставления даты (члены ОИК оказались неграмотными). Еще один такой случай зафиксирован в судебном решении в отношении И. В. Бускина (округ № 13): «Специалистом установлено, что подписи выполнены разными лицами. При исследовании записей дат внесения подписей… специалистом установлено, что в некоторых строках подписных листов… записи выполнены одним лицом… подписи были признаны недостоверными».

Кроме того, в большинстве случаев, когда были найдены недостоверные подписи, ни одной из них не забраковали по основанию несобственноручного проставления даты. Поэтому логично предполагать, что не только в отмеченных выше трех случаях, но и почти во всех почерковеды браковали подписи из-за дат, а не очень грамотные члены ОИК ошибочно квалифицировали их как недостоверные.

Что касается проверки правильности данных избирателей через МВД, то обращает на себя внимание тот факт, что у 11 кандидатов из семи разных округов по этому основанию не забраковано ни одной подписи. В некоторых судебных решениях находится разгадка данного феномена: ответ от МВД пришел, когда уже истек срок принятия решения о регистрации. Awesome! По всем оппозиционерам МВД успело ответить. А вот по ряду административных и технических кандидатов не успело. И мы еще что-то толкуем о равенстве.

Как отмечалось выше, проверке по базе МВД предшествовала проверка по регистру избирателей, и в МВД направлялись запросы в отношении только тех подписей, где были выявлены несоответствия с регистром. При этом в некоторых случаях мы знаем число подписей в запросе. Так, Андрей Бузин в своей статье (см. стр. 3) отмечает, что по И. В. Яшину в запросе было 734 подписи, а МВД из них признала недействительными только 232. Здесь явно напрашивается вопрос, в чем дело: столько несоответствий в регистре или это результат недобросовестности ОИК?

Есть аналогичные данные о судебных решениях и по другим кандидатам. Например, по кандидату П. С. Фёдорову (от КПКР, округ № 33) в МВД был направлен запрос в отношении 186 избирателей, однако «по данным ГУ МВД России по Москве наличие расхождений не подтвердилось». По Т. В. Гордиенко (от КПКР, округ № 16) был направлен запрос в отношении 146 избирателей, из них несоответствия выявлены у 135, однако ответ из МВД пришел в ОИК уже после составления итогового протокола проверки подписных листов.

В большинстве судебных решений есть фрагмент примерно следующего содержания: истец утверждает, что проверка достоверности подписей не проводилась, однако это утверждение опровергается протоколом и ведомостью проверки. Не знаю, что реально утверждали истцы, но вся совокупность фактов (в том числе цифры, приведенные в таблице) наводит на мысль, что в отношении многих кандидатов проверка проводилась весьма поверхностно, в отличие от ряда других кандидатов, у которых специально искали, к чему бы придраться. И это ощущение произвола усиливается, когда узнаёшь, что кандидатам удалось собрать заявления большого числа избирателей, чьи подписи были забракованы, о том, что эти избиратели собственноручно ставили подпись и дату. А также что есть заключения других почерковедов, опровергающих заключения экспертов, привлеченных к проверке в ОИК.

Проверка жалоб в МГИК и ЦИК

У меня нет точных данных, сколько кандидатов, получивших отказ, обратились с жалобами в МГИК. Мосгоризбирком принципиально не опубликовал ни одного решения по жалобам. Единственная удовлетворенная МГИК жалоба — С. С. Митрохина, но он получил в ОИК повторный отказ, после чего выиграл суд.

ЦИК приняла решения по 10 кандидатам, которым отказал Мосгоризбирком. При этом два кандидата (Ю. А. Серебрянская и Е. А. Игнатова) отозвали свои жалобы уже после рассмотрения их на рабочей группе Центризбиркома. Жалоба Ю. Е. Галяминой также рассматривалась на рабочей группе, но перед заседанием ЦИК обнаружилось, что она подала жалобу также в суд, и ЦИК по этой причине снял ее жалобу с рассмотрения. З. И. Шаргатова отозвала свою жалобу, после того как ЦИК отказала в удовлетворении жалоб первым пяти кандидатам.

Известно, что после рассмотрения жалоб в Мосгоризбиркоме в суд подали, помимо Галяминой, также И. Ю. Жданов, Д. О. Булыкин и М. А. Лукьянец. Также есть информация, что МГИК рассмотрел жалобы А. В. Бабушкина и К. С. Янкаускаса. Таким образом, через МГИК прошло как минимум 20 жалоб.

На заседании Центризбиркома была представлена таблица (рис. 2), показавшая, что как МГИК, так и ЦИК сокращали число забракованных подписей. С одной стороны, это может служить индикатором предвзятого отношения со стороны ОИК. Сюда можно добавить и данные по некоторым другим кандидатам. Так, у Ю. А. Серебрянской после проверки Мосгоризбиркома число забракованных подписей сократилось с 2276 до 726. И. Ю. Жданову были возвращены 153 подписи. Показателен также пример А. В. Бабушкина, у которого почти все подписи были забракованы из-за типографской ошибки — в номере счета, с которого была оплачена печать подписных листов, появилась лишняя цифра. МГИК после проверки вернула кандидату 4096 подписей, но ему всё равно не хватило действительных подписей для регистрации.

Однако, во-первых, все эти «послабления» не привели к регистрации кандидатов (кроме С. С. Митрохина). При этом на заседаниях ЦИК рабочая группа легко шла навстречу кандидату и возвращала ему подписи, когда речь шла о единицах или десятках, не влиявших на общий вывод о правомерности отказа в регистрации. Но как только речь заходила о сотнях подписей, возврат которых мог привести к отмене решения об отказе, в ход пускались самые изощренные аргументы, чтобы доказать, что подписи забракованы правильно.

Касательно МГИК важно отметить, что там все документы кандидата, в том числе и все подписи, проверялись заново. Это очень сомнительный подход с точки зрения равенства прав кандидатов: ведь у зарегистрированных кандидатов документы повторно не проверялись. При этом кандидатам не сообщалось, какие подписи МГИК оставила недействительными, и им по этой причине было трудно отбивать оставшиеся. Практически все кандидаты говорили, что увидели протокол проверки МГИК только в ЦИК — за день до заседания рабочей группы. А представитель МГИК при этом лицемерно заявлял: мы же вам сократили число недействительных подписей, чем же вы недовольны?

Однако при этом МГИК не только сокращала число забракованных подписей, но и находила новые. Так, у Ю. А. Серебрянской были признаны действительными почти все подписи, забракованные ОИК, но при этом аннулированы другие подписи. При проверке в МГИК жалобы Д. О. Булыкина число забракованных подписей увеличилось на 389 (этим ситуация с Булыкиным кардинально отличается от ситуации с отмеченными выше кандидатами). У М. А. Лукьянец, как следует из судебного решения, МГИК признала действительными 115 подписей, забракованных ОИК, но одновременно дополнительно забраковала 64.

Даже с регистрацией С. С. Митрохина всё было драматично. После первого отказа ОИК ему не хватало для регистрации 169 подписей. МГИК в своем решении по его жалобе отметила, что «по 203 подписям имеются критические замечания в части обоснования причин признания их недействительными», и обязала ОИК повторно рассмотреть вопрос о регистрации кандидата. ОИК при повторном рассмотрении признала недействительными 489 подписей, в результате кандидату не хватило 40. Суд, изучив забракованные подписи, восстановил 98, и этого оказалось достаточно для регистрации кандидата.

Все эти факты только усиливают сомнения в равном подходе избирательных комиссий к разным кандидатам и в правомерности их решений как о регистрации одних, так и об отказе другим.

Аркадий Любарев,
cand. yur. наук, член совета движения «Голос», член Научно-экспертного совета при ЦИК России