The proposed changes could undermine trust in the Central Electoral Commission

Members of the Georgian Dream political party proposed changes to the Election Code during the parliamentary meeting on 2 May. The draft law introduces several significant changes; namely, removing the article which obliges the Central Electoral Commission (CEC) to form an Advisory Group prior to elections. Furthermore, it changes the decision-making process within the CEC by lowering the requirement from a two-thirds majority vote to a simple majority for passing decisions.

The draft law proposes expanding Article 8 of the Election Code of Georgia with provision 41, stating: “If the CEC fails to adopt the decision as a result of voting at its session, for the adoption of which it must be supported by no less than two-thirds (12 members) of the total number of the CEC members, the CEC decision shall be put to the vote again at the same session. In that case, the CEC decision shall be deemed adopted if supported by a majority (nine members) of the total number of the CEC members.”

The Georgian Young Lawyers’ Association (GYLA) explains: “The proposed change infringes the logic of the balance between those selected on party and professional grounds reached as a result of the political agreement on 19 April 2021. As a result, decisions will rely solely on the votes of the eight professional members and the ruling party’s representative. This shift undermines the degree of participation of opposition parties.”

The aforementioned amendments will be applied to the resolutions of the CEC that currently need two-thirds majority vote as per the current provisions according to the GYLA’s explanation. “A CEC decree is a subordinate normative act that may be passed in cases directly defined by law, regulating several significant issues. In particular, a CEC decree sets the rules and regulations for using electronic technologies during the 2024 parliamentary election, outlines voting procedures and oversees the procedure for distributing and utilising state funds allocated for holding an election. Furthermore, the CEC is authorised to determine other additional measures and deadlines required for the second round of elections. The CEC also adopts the rules of operation for an election commission through these decrees.”

“The proposed changes presented by the Georgian Dream, without clear justification and in defiance of recommendations from international organisations, reflect another step towards undermining the current legislation against the backdrop of legislative deterioration. The aforementioned amendment de facto excludes opposition involvement from the decision-making process and raises significant concerns regarding the ruling party’s potential undue influence over the election administration. Consequently, these amendments further undermine public and opposition trust in the electoral administration,” states the GYLA.

The GYLA urges the ruling party to abandon these proposed amendments as they will undermine the legitimacy of the decisions made by the CEC.

The Advisory Group of the CEC, which the presented draft law proposes to abolish, is formed during the election period within ten days after an election is announced according to the Election Code of Georgia. This group is comprised of representatives from the Public Defender’s Office of Georgia and international and/or local experts chosen by monitoring organisations. The explanatory note of the draft justifies the cancellation of the Advisory Group by emphasising practical experience. Specifically, the authors of the draft law claim: “The group is ineffective as monitoring organisations are generally unwilling to participate in its activities.”

In reality, the Advisory Group was dissolved during the 2021 elections due to flaws in legislation and the selection process. The Georgian Dream has proposed abolishing the Advisory Group altogether, rather than addressing these flaws, further undermining the credibility of electoral processes.

The Electoral Code initially introduced a provision to create an Advisory Group for the CEC in 2021. The Advisory Group would present recommendations on election disputes to the CEC. Furthermore, the group would also potentially participate in recounting voting results. However, the Advisory Group formed with the CEC was dissolved at the end due to the flaws in the selection process.

Transparency International (TI) and the International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED) left the selection process for the Advisory Group members in 2021, citing that the CEC could not ensure a selection of qualified and reliable individuals by consensus.

The statement from the aforementioned non-governmental organisations reads: “The CEC invited all local observer organisations that were registered with the CEC during the last three general elections to select members of the Advisory Group. During the first meeting, we were informed that 15 such observer organisations expressed a desire to participate in this process. However, the credibility, good reputation, operations and financial transparency of the vast majority of these organisations can be seriously questioned. Many of them have been repeatedly negatively reported in the election assessments of the credible international and local observer organizations. In addition, the CEC resolution initially stated that observer organisations should select members of the Advisory Group by consensus. However, on 6 August, the CEC amended the resolution stating that if the members of the Advisory Group could not be selected by consensus, they still would have a second chance. During the second vote, candidates can be selected by the support of at least ⅔ of the observer organizations. This change made it possible for the CEC Advisory Group to be fully staffed by observers with a dubious reputation.”

Consequently, highly credible non-governmental organisations left the staffing process of the Advisory Group in light of the aforementioned circumstances.

Currently, the ruling party has proposed abolishing the Advisory Group altogether, rather than addressing the aforementioned flaws, further undermining trust in electoral processes and the CEC.