Elections Monitors’ Report from Ukrainian Presidential Election – Round 1

Now that the official part of the elections monitoring of the first round is over I can post this international observers report:

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Highlights:
Significant violations and falsification of election results at polling station #4
Several technical violations in majority of polling stations visited

Opening of polling station
The opening of the polling station #48 was handled “by the book”. No irregularities were observed.

Voting observations
In our tour of 14 polling stations several irregularities were observed and are summarized as follows:
-Number of urns was not consistent with the regulations. Several stations with over 1000 voters on the list had but 2 or 3 urns. (Art. 74/4) Observed at polling stations numbers: 48, 47, 8, 55, 20, 57, and 4. In some polling stations, boxes were delivered after the election process had started.
-Voting lists were handwritten but reported as being accurate.
-Excessive numbers of “Vidkripni posvidchenya” were not observed.
-In several stations (typically villages) we observed issuing of bulletins without presentation of passports. When the issue was addressed people were told to return for passports but this resolution of the issue may have been temporary during our stay.
-Polling booth numbers were also inconsistent with the law (Art. 74/3) Observed at polling stations numbers: 48, 8, 11, 55, and 21.
-Polling booths were sometimes located incorrectly and poorly lit. In one case booths were against a stage where people were working. In the case of DVK #4 where we closed the polling booths separated the urns from the area where most members of the committee were sitting. (Art. 74/3)
-Polling booths were observed to have flat surfaces that were cabinets with drawers covered by a tablecloth. The potential was there to hide things although inspection revealed no such case. Observed at polling station number: 21.

Closing and counting
-Our final visit was to DVK #4 where closing and counting was observed. As mentioned above, the urns were placed at one end of the hall and 6 polling booths separated them from the rest of the hall where all the tables of the commission were. Only a maximum of 5 observers could view the urns at one time. Our interviewing of several commission members and observers indicated that there was mixed allegiance to parties but observing the behavior throughout the evening indicated that they were mostly teachers of the same school and were very familiar amongst themselves. There was one independent observer from the city of Sumy TV station (Mr. X) who was quickly identified to us as an “agitator” and another from an alternate party (Mr. Y). It was quickly obvious to us that all the people working at this DVK were teachers at the school potentially under duress.

-We observed many irregularities in the counting process. Our concerns which were vocalized were ignored by the commission. Counting irregularities are summarized as follows:
After voting ended the urns were in full view but the tops were not covered.
Manual count by member sitting beside urns did not equal the number of “talon” (tear strips) counted, which did not equal the number of ballots counted. The result of the manual count of actual voters taken by observers beside the ballot boxes was 2276. This number was never announced, the notebook with the count disappeared. The total number of voters was recorded as 2552.
-The ballot count sequence outlined in the law was not followed. Results were announced in groups and only after fervent calculations on the part of the Head of the Committee. (Art. 78)
Voter list signatures were not counted.
-Unused ballots were counted but count was not announced quickly. There was some fervent activity before this was announced.
-Identification of invalid ballots was not consistent. Individuals collecting ballots independently rejected ballots that had marks continuing past the edge of the boxes. This seemed to be happening more often for the Yushchenko pile.
-Counting area and table was situated purposely to reduce view of observers. It was on a stage against the wall and the stage front. The ability of observers to monitor the process was significantly restricted.
-Were are not convinced that the second ballot box had a control sheet. It wasn’t on the top of the pile when the box was emptied onto the table.. When asked, the Chair of the Committee produced the sheet from the middle of a document pile in front of her.
-Mobile urn voting may have been done under duress since the count was observed to have about 118 for Yanukovich, 6 invalid ballots and 14 for other candidates.
-Persons collecting the two main candidate’s ballots were sitting side by side and there was confusion on which pile a ballot was actually placed. We are convinced that some ballots destined for Yushchenko ended up on the wrong pile.
-After the urns were dumped on the table there was a quick flurry of activity as the pile was shuffled around seemingly to distribute them to members to unfold. We observed many folded up ballots that looked rather thick and we deduced were actually multiple stuffed ballots. We insisted on stopping the process to observe these but were totally ignored. The flurry of activity simply increased. One member, a young man, stepped up and pick up such a pile. There were ten ballots wrapped up together. The pile was unfolded by the commission member and the Sumy reporter read out loud the names of the committee members that signed the ballot and the candidate selected – Yanukovich. The head of the commission and others attacked him for interfering and threw the ballots back into the pile. 2 acts were filed by Mr.X and Mr. Y.
-After each candidate’s pile was counted the numbers were announced but not Yanukovich’s. When we asked to repeat these numbers louder we were told not to get in the way of the proceedings. The head of the commission was observed to be fervently calculating numbers on a calculator and only after 10 minutes got up and announced the numbers including Yanukovich’s. In one case the number for Moroz that we heard was 157 but was announced as 197 . This must have been to spread the hidden total number of missing ballots between several candidates (total talons were 2552, total ballots were 2449, some must have not found their way back to the polling station after being taken out for fixing).
-One member (the same one mentioned above) asked for a recount but his request was denied.
Members of the committee were asked to sign blank protocols. We were not given copies of any protocols even though we requested them a number of times.
-We believe that the count of TVK 161, DVK #4 are completely inaccurate in that they have stuffed the votes and even after that the counting of the ballots were inaccurate.

Observations at TVK
-We followed our committee to the TVK #161. Here we observed the following:
There was utter chaos at the entrance to the building as various DVK members fought to get in first.
-After gaining entrance to the large hall each DVK presented their protocols. Ours was presented as written back at the polling station.
-The announcement and recording of the individual DVK results is fraught with potential for inaccuracy.
-Results were read out load in a large room while four people behind the desk were recording them. Numbers could easily be transposed or missed.
-The actual entering of the numbers into a computer was done somewhere else without independent observation.
-The reports of polling station # 4 were not accepted immediately because of a technical issue: the protocol for one missing talon was inside an envelope not attached outside. The Committee of polling station #4 was sent back with all the ballots and their election results were not announced at that time.

For pictures of the pikes of ballots click here