CENTRAL ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER REVIEWS TRIP TO

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 MOSCOW 012630 SIPDIS SIPDIS DEPT FOR EUR/RUS E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/27/2016 TAGS: PGOV KDEM PHUM RS SUBJECT: CENTRAL ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER REVIEWS TRIP TO U.S.; REACTS TO ELECTION LAW AMENDMENTS REF: MOSCOW 12498 Classified By: Ambassador William J. Burns: 1.4 (b) and (d). -------------- Summary -------------- ¶1. (C) Central Electoral Commission Chairman Aleksandr Veshnyakov described to Ambassador November 21 his reaction to State Duma-adopted amendments to the existing electoral law (reftel). Veshnyakov's key judgments: -- elimination of the minimum threshold for voter turnout in Russia was premature, and might allow parties to court only that small group of voters likely to vote for them. A turnout of less than 50 percent, in Veshnyakov's view, could call into question the legitimacy of those elected; -- amendments adding to the list of circumstances under which candidates could be excluded are not welcome. Although the decision not to register the Republican Party of Russia was not made by his Central Election Commission, Veshnyakov suggested that, in principle, parties should be excluded for "real reasons," not bureaucratic ones. -- although the law did not allow them to be independently registered as election observers, Russian NGOs wishing to observed the elections could do so with the sponsorship of registered political parties. End summary. -------------- Reaction to Changes in the Electoral Law -------------- ¶2. (C) In a November 21 meeting, Central Election Commission Chairman Aleksandr Veshnyakov offered Ambassador the following observations on recent changes to the Russian electoral law (reftel): -- in Veshnyakov's view, there was no need for further amendments to the law. Some of the new amendments are "not logical." -- Veshnyakov remained opposed to the elimination of a minimal threshold for voter turnout. While noting that Germany, Great Britain, and the United States had no threshold, Veshnyakov worried that its elimination in Russia would allow political parties to "campaign only with those voters who will vote for them." A turnout of less than 50 percent would call into question the representative nature of the elected government, he thought. Veshnyakov said that his final verdict on the decision would have to await the results of the 2007 elections. -- As a general principle, Veshnyakov thought it better not �A;to exclude candidates for "formal" or "technical" violations of the electoral law. If a would-be candidate inadvertently did not provide the full disclosure required by the law, or incorrectly completed a registration form, s/he should not be penalized. There are already more than enough reasons in the existing electoral laws for disqualifying candidates, Veshnyakov thought. More should not be added. -- As an addendum to the preceding and in response to a question from the Ambassador, Veshnyakov termed the refusal of the Federal Registration Service (FRS) to register the Republican Party of Russia (RPR) an "unpleasant theme for me." While repeatedly stressing that the decision was not his to make, he again said there should be "real reasons, not bureaucratic reasons," for refusing to register a political party. The RPR, said Veshnyakov, is free to appeal the FRS's decision through the courts. -- Veshnyakov sidestepped difficulties faced by Russian NGO representatives wishing to be accredited as observers, noting that they could be registered with the sponsorship of participating political parties. The Foundation for Free Elections, under the Chairmanship of Public Chamber member Andrey Przhembskiy would also be able to coordinate the efforts of NGOs wishing to observe the elections, Veshnyakov said. -------------- Party Financing -------------- ¶3. (C) In response to a question from the Ambassador about the comparatively deeper pockets of Kremlin-associated MOSCOW 00012630 002 OF 002 political parties like United Russia, Veshnyakov defended Russia's campaign finance system. Among its features: -- each registered political party is required to set up a special, transparent campaign account; -- the maximal amount allowed to be spent on a campaign is determined by law; -- state television networks and state print media are required to provided minimal free access for all registered parties; -- political parties can purchase additional media coverage with money from the official campaign funds; -- Veshnyakov noted parenthetically that nothing of course prevents the media from devoting more air time to the more telegenic or interesting candidates. -------------- Electronic Voting -------------- ¶4. (C) Veshnyakov and members of his commission had recently returned from a trip to the U.S., where they observed the conduct of the November elections. Asked by the Ambassador what he had gleaned in the U.S. that might have application in Russia, Veshnyakov offered the following observations: -- even in Illinois, which Veshnyakov described as "far advanced" in the development of electronic voting, it appeared to him that the voter was often not "psychologically prepared." Veshnyakov guessed that as many of 80 percent of the voters there preferred more traditional means of registering their votes to electronic voting. The October 8 experiment with electronic voting in Novgorod suggested that the same was the case with the Russian voter. Veshnyakov described to Ambassador plans to offer informational seminars, outreach to voters through the mass media, and to provide training modules as the Russian experiment with electronic voting advanced. During a lengthy transition period, his Commission planned to offer voters the option of using a paper ballot, as well. The CEC had determined that each electronic terminal would be equipped to allow voters to print a copy of their ballot, should they choose to do so. A paper record, he thought, should quell the worries of those worried that their votes may have been recorded incorrectly. BURNS