Press Release, 24.10.2017

The Central Election Commission of Russia (CEC) offers legislators several options for adjusting the so-called municipal filter, including exemption of the candidates running for the post of governor from parliamentary parties and parties that have factions in legislative assemblies from collection of signatures of municipal deputies in their favour so that to be registered in the campaign, and lowering the threshold of the filter. This is reported today by TASS.

According to CEC secretary Maria Grishina, the option of “lifting a strict restriction when one [municipal] deputy can support [i.e. sign for] only one candidate” is also discussed.

On 28 September, the Pskov Regional Assembly of Deputies did not support the legislative initiative of Lev Shlosberg on the abolition of the requirement to collect signatures of municipal deputies and heads of local self-government bodies for the candidates for the post of governor from the parties represented in the State Duma and regional parliaments.

“In fact, the ‘municipal filter’ represents an ‘administrative filter’, provides the illusion of competition in elections, prevents opponents that are not suitable for the current authorities from entering the race. The present model of the ‘municipal filter’ does not guarantee the election of the highest official of a subject [i.e. region] of the Russian Federation (the head of the highest executive body of the state power of the subject of the Russian Federation) on a broad alternative basis and in conditions of real political competition,” the explanatory note to the bill ran.

“I am certain that sooner or later the ‘municipal filter’ will be removed from the legislation of the Russian Federation,” Lev Shlosberg said.

The legislative initiative of the deputy from Pskov branch of Yabloko received a positive opinion of the Legal Department of the Pskov Regional Assembly and support of representatives of the opposition factions of the regional parliament. The administration of the Pskov region stated that it considered “the arguments set forth in the explanatory note insufficient to change the current legal regulations”.