What Should Members of Electoral Commissions Be Awarded For?

Lyubarev A.E.

Abstract

This brief note draws attention to the one-sided approach to the issue of awarding members of electoral commissions in Aleksei Elaev’s article. It presents cases in which members of electoral commissions implicated in violations of citizens’ electoral rights received awards. It is proposed that award criteria be defined and that the public be involved in the awarding process.

---

Aleksei Elaev’s article "State Award Policy and Departmental Labour Distinctions for Members of Election Commissions of the Russian Federation: Problems of Implementation" [3] raises an important issue: incentives for members of electoral commissions. The article rightly notes that, during electoral campaigns, around one million Russian citizens perform state functions not for a salary but for a rather modest remuneration. At the same time, they bear responsibility for their work, up to and including criminal liability – in other words, responsibility for ensuring citizens’ electoral rights.

Although participation in the work of electoral commissions is formally voluntary, we know that in practice there are often not enough people willing to take on this work. As a result, citizens have to be recruited through their employers to perform the duties of electoral commission members on a formally voluntary but effectively compulsory basis – a practice not unique to Russia [6: 86–87]. The issue of incentivizing citizens’ participation in the work of electoral commissions should therefore be regarded as relevant.

However, Elaev’s article presents this issue from only one side. The author examines the relevant regulatory documents and points to a clear imbalance: lower-level electoral administrators do a large amount of work, yet in practice remain excluded from the system of social recognition. What the article leaves aside, however, is one of the central issues: the criteria that should be used to select nominees for awards.

In this brief note, I do not attempt to offer a comprehensive answer. My aim is only to show that the issue is both serious and highly sensitive.

Over the years, we have repeatedly encountered cases in which electoral commission awards were given to citizens who should instead have been held accountable for violations of citizens’ electoral rights. One such case occurred in January 2002, when the Moscow City Election Commission (MCEC) awarded a large group of citizens for their work in the 2001 Moscow City Duma election (the author of this note was himself among those awarded).

A critical article about these awards appeared in MK [8]. Among other things, it noted that a certificate of honor had been awarded to V.G.Pekova, a member of the TEC of the Orekhovo-Borisovo Severnoye District (former chair of that TEC) and head of the organizational department of the district administration. Pekova had previously been exposed for manipulations involving early voting and other violations of citizens’ electoral rights. The article also noted that the honorary badge Za aktivnuiu rabotu na vyborakh ("For Active Work in Elections"), second class, had been awarded to O.Ya.Kalacheva, a member of the TEC of the Maryino District and head of the organizational department of that district administration. Kalacheva bore at least moral responsibility for falsifications in that district during the 2000 by-election to the Moscow City Duma; see also [2: 136–139; 4: 294–298, 304–311]. I would add that V.G. Pekova’s subsequent conduct was consistent with this pattern [7].

Another example was the awarding of election organizers after the 2008 presidential campaign. My colleague Andrei Buzin conducted a study at the time showing that the awards went primarily to heads of electoral commissions that had produced "phenomenal electoral results" [1; 2].

The problem of awarding members of electoral commissions implicated in violations of citizens’ electoral rights is therefore not imaginary. Addressing it requires a set of comprehensive measures.

One possible course of action is to formulate award criteria. There are two possible approaches here, depending on the expected number of award recipients. In the case of selective awarding, the criterion should be genuine individual merit in protecting citizens’ electoral rights. Examples of such awards, at least in terms of their stated purposes, include the Pamyatnaya medal im. N.M.Girenko ("N.M.Girenko Commemorative Medal"), awarded by the CEC of Russia in 2007–2015, and the Zashchitniku svobodnykh vyborov medal ("To the Defender of Free Elections"), awarded by community activists in 2009–2020 [2: 256–259, 339–341].

If awards are granted on a broad scale, the criterion may be an impeccable record over a certain number of years – or, better yet, electoral campaigns. Such a record should mean the absence of violations, not only intentional ones but also those resulting from negligence or inadequate training. Intentional violations should entail, at a minimum, administrative liability and exclusion from membership in an electoral commission in the next cycle; for other violations, the appropriate consequence may be the loss of eligibility for an award.

For members of electoral commissions responsible for registering candidates and/or candidate lists, such violations should primarily include refusals to register that were overturned by a higher-level commission or by a court (provided that the commission member voted in favor of the refusal).

For members of precinct electoral commissions, the primary example of such a violation should be signing a final results protocol that contains incorrect data. For members of higher-level commissions, it should be the acceptance of such a protocol. Cases of this kind are widespread and can be readily proven even without court proceedings [5: 26–33].

The second approach is to make the selection of award nominees more transparent and to involve the public in this process. Members of the public are more likely than CEC officials to draw attention to nominees implicated in violations of electoral rights and to put forward those who have distinguished themselves in defending those rights. The experience of awarding the Girenko Medal and “To the Defender of Free Elections” medal points to the same conclusion [2: 256–259, 339–341].

The issue of awarding departmental distinctions to members of electoral commissions therefore requires further discussion.

Received 09.04.2026.

---

References

1. Buzin A. Kurs anomalnoi elektoralnoi statistiki (rekordy i nagrady moskovkikh vyborov). – Website of the Interregional Association of Voters, 22.04.2008. URL: http://www.votas.ru/anomstat.zip (accessed 08.04.2026). (In Russ.) - http://www.votas.ru/anomstat.zip
2. Buzin A.Yu. Rossiyskiye vybory: iznutri, snaruzhi, sboku. Zapiski negosudarstvennogo cheloveka [A View of Elections in Russia: Inside, Outside, Sideways. Diary of a Non-Statesman]. M.: KnigIzdat, 2020. 850 p. (In Russ.)
3. Elaev A.A. State Award Policy and Departmental Labour Distinctions for Members of Election Commissions of the Russian Federation: Problems of Implementation. – Electoral Politics. 2026. No. 1 (15). P. 5. - https://electoralpolitics.org/en/articles/problemy-realizatsii-gosudarstvennoi-nagradnoi-politiki-pri-nagrazhdenii-chlenov-izbiratelnykh-komissii-rossiiskoi-federatsii-vedomstvennymi-znakami-otlichiia-v-trude/
4. Lyubarev A.E. Vybory v Moskve: opyt dvenadtsati let. 1989–2000 [Elections in Moscow: a 12-Year Legacy. 1989–2000]. Moscow: Stolny grad, 2001. 416 p. (In Russ.)
5. Lyubarev A.E. Zanimatelnaya elektoralnaya statistika [Entertaining Election Statistics]. Moscow: Golos Consulting, 2021. 304 p. (In Russ.)
6. Lyubarev A. Na puti k reforme zakonodatelstva o vyborakh: pozitsiya ekspertov [On the Way to Reforming the Electoral Legislation: An Expert Take]. М.: Izdatelskiye resheniya, 2019. 242 p. (In Russ.)
7. Lyubarev A. TsIK ne dovolen moskovskoi prokuraturoi [The Central Election Commission Is Unhappy with the Moscow Prosecutor’s Office]. – Website of the Interregional Association of Voters, 30.07.2004. URL: http://www.votas.ru/proku2004.html (accessed 08.04.2026). (In Russ.) - http://www.votas.ru/proku2004.html
8. Pichugina E. Panel pocheta [A Roll of Dishonor]. – MK, 10.01.2002. URL: https://www.mk.ru/old/article/2002/01/10/172483-panel-pocheta.html (accessed 08.04.2026). (In Russ.) - https://www.mk.ru/old/article/2002/01/10/172483-panel-pocheta.html