Decline in Electoral Complaints Adjudication Standard in Georgia

ISFED, a non-governmental organization, filed 127 complaints with DECs concerning violations detected on Election Day, during the counting of votes, and in the post-election period of the October 28 presidential election. Out of these complaints, 15 were satisfied, 13 were partially satisfied, 40 were not satisfied, and 18 were left without consideration. One complaint was withdrawn by the organization itself. Majority of complaints sought imposition of liability on Precinct Election Commission (PEC) members, including administrative liability for inadequate fulfillment of duties. In several cases, revision and invalidation of voting results were requested, but none of these complaints were satisfied. These demands were mostly raised in cases where data had been rewritten in summary protocols or numbers did not reconcile. For instance, when the number of votes received by subjects together with the number of invalid ballots exceeded the number of voters that had cast a ballot. Complaints concerned inadequate handling of summary protocols due to errors or omissions in summary protocols, such as date and time of when a protocol was prepared, commission seal number, etc. A total of 36 complaints were filed over these issues. Additionally, 9 complaints concerned precincts where the sum of the number of votes received by subjects and the number of invalidated ballots exceeded the number of voters that had cast a ballot. Furthermore, 14 complaints were filed over rewritten or corrected data in summary protocols. During the complaints process, representatives of ISFED had an opportunity to attend adjudication of complaints and express their position about the complaints filed. However, in some cases, DECs failed to summon parties to attend consideration of complaints. For instance, Poti DEC did not summon ISFED representatives, while Khobi DEC adjudicated a complaint in the absence of an ISFED representative. The organization was informed that they did not appear, and after this fact became known, they scheduled another meeting, stating that "nothing would change." At Tkibuli DEC, the representative of ISFED was told that they were not going to satisfy the complaint because, as members of the DEC alleged, the observer had filed the complaint for the sake of filing at least one complaint. The problems identified are similar to those detected in the 2017 self-government elections. Complaints were not satisfied mostly on the basis of explanatory notes of PEC members, which DECs viewed as credible evidence irrespective of the seriousness of the violation and despite the fact that most of these explanatory notes had been drawn up after the Election Day. Similar to the practice identified in previous elections, DECs considered that explanatory notes and correction protocols served as the basis for releasing the implicated persons from liability and viewed the existence of explanatory notes or correction protocols as elimination of the violation in cases like issuing excessive number of ballots, placing a signature in someone else's box, or omission of signature. DECs also avoided revision of tabulation results irrespective of the seriousness of the violation, relying on explanatory notes of PEC members or correction protocols prepared after the voting day.