R 271038Z APR 09
FM AMCONSUL ST PETERSBURG
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 2760
INFO AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 
AMCONSUL ST PETERSBURG 
AMCONSUL VLADIVOSTOK 
AMCONSUL YEKATERINBURG

UNCLAS ST PETERSBURG 000054 
 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: RS PGOV
SUBJECT: ST. PETERSBURG'S MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS POST SCRIPT 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary: While United Russia won the March 1 municipal 
elections in St. Petersburg by a wide margin, its victory was 
tainted by accusations of electoral fraud.  Allegations by 
opposition groups range from improper denial of candidate 
registration to outright vote stealing, and were fairly 
widespread throughout the city.  City authorities have been 
reluctant to investigate the allegations, and so new revelations 
exposing electoral fraud are unlikely.  End Summary. 
 
-------------------------------- 
A United Russia Victory, but With Some Issues 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) St. Petersburg held its local council elections on 
March 1 in 108 of its 111 municipal districts.  United Russia 
(YR) won over 75% of the contested seats with 1,145 victorious 
candidates.  More than 99% of YR's candidates had been 
successfully able to register for the election.  This was in 
stark contrast to the experience of large numbers of A Just 
Russia, KPRF, Yabloko and independent candidates whose candidate 
registration applications were often denied by their respective 
local district election commissions.  Complaints to the City 
Election Commission (CEC) to overturn the decisions of the local 
election commissions were mostly unfruitful, as the CEC 
generally recommended the complainants refer their cases back to 
the local election commissions or take their complaints to the 
courts.  Some opposition candidates were then able to register 
through the local election commissions or through the courts. 
However, this was often done only a few days before the 
election, and consequently the candidates were unable to 
effectively campaign.  Various election-day irregularities also 
cast a pall on the process.  Overall, opposition activists 
consider the St. Petersburg municipal election of March 1 to 
have been blatantly unfair and fraudulent. 
 
-------------------------------- 
Registration Difficulties Set the Tone 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) A Just Russia had serious difficulties in registering 
its slate of candidates in the municipal election.  Over 500 of 
its candidates were unable to register at all, and more than 
half of the party's registered candidates were able to register 
only after successfully arguing their case in front of either 
their respective local district election commissions or in the 
court system.  Members of A Just Russia also claim the city 
district administrators (who are appointed by the governor) 
pressured their candidates to withdraw from the election, with 
those candidates whose jobs were government related (such as in 
the schools, universities, or hospitals) being subjected to 
particularly heavy pressure. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Yabloko candidates had similar registration problems, 
with less than half of Yabloko-affiliated candidates making it 
onto the ballot.  Even so, the leaders of the St. Petersburg 
branch of Yabloko believe that the current electoral system, 
with its five-seat municipal election districts, has proven 
beneficial for them.  They note that their candidates who were 
on the ballot did quite well, often coming in 4th or 5th place 
even without strong campaigning, with five of the twelve 
official Yabloko candidates being elected.  Two more Yabloko 
candidates also seem to have been elected, but have subsequently 
been embroiled in an ongoing court dispute (see para 10). 
 
¶5. (SBU) Local Yabloko leader Mikhail Amosov commented that it 
had been difficult to implement Yabloko's informal pre-election 
agreement with A Just Russia to avoid running their candidates 
in the same districts, and thus dividing the anti-United Russia 
vote.  Often, candidates were notified that they were officially 
registered just a few days before the election - after the 
withdrawal deadline.  Consequently, all candidates remained on 
the ballot, and the votes of residents who did not want to 
support YR were split between several opposition candidates, 
thus enhancing United Russia's position. 
 
-------------------------------- 
Technicalities, Technicalities 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) There were several ways the local district election 
commissions denied candidates' registration.  One of the most 
common was for commission members to arbitrarily change the 
numbers of the electoral districts, and then not inform all 
potential candidates of the changes.  Uninformed candidates thus 
put the wrong district numbers on their applications, and so had 
their applications rejected on the grounds of this "error."  The 
written rejections for the invalid applications often came too 
late for the parties to hold another party conference which 
could re-nominate the rejected candidates using the correct 
district numbers.  Suspiciously, it seemed that YR's candidates 
always knew the correct district numbers, and did not have this 
problem as YR candidates were generally registered without 
problem. 
 
¶7. (SBU) Another common reason for registration rejection was 
based on the requirement that the party conferences which 
nominated a party's candidates had to be attended by 
representatives of the local election commissions in order to 
validate the nominated candidates.  A Just Russia argues that it 
always sent invitations to the appropriate authorities and even 
received postal delivery confirmations for them.  Nonetheless, 
local election commission members insisted they had never 
received the invitations, and thus ruled that the nominating 
conferences, and the nominated candidates, were invalid. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Yabloko leaders also claim that many of their 
candidates' applications were dismissed because of various 
technicalities and rules that were unevenly applied.  For 
example, Amosov had his registration rejected because the 
chairman of the local municipal unit (himself a Yabloko member) 
had collected signatures for Amosov.  The local election 
commission deemed this activity to be an unlawful combination of 
municipal duties with electioneering, and so thus justified 
denying Amosov's registration. 
 
-------------------------------- 
Election Day Irregularities 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶9. (SBU) Opposition candidates also allege that fraud was 
committed on electionday itself.  A leading member of A Just 
Russia alleges that his party members had discovered a ballot 
box already stuffed with ballots before the polls had even 
opened.  Despite the eyewitness accounts, however, it took 
nearly a month before the law enforcement agencies opened a case 
to investigate the incident. 
 
¶10. (SBU) Two candidates supported by Yabloko alleged that their 
victories were stolen, stating that the vote results were 
tampered with and changed after the two had received initial 
confirmation of their victories.  The two candidates are 
attempting to restore the initial election results through the 
court system, and they have requested the prosecutors' office 
open a fraud investigation.  Six weeks after the election, no 
investigation has been opened. 
 
-------------------------------- 
Possible Glimmers of Hope for Future Fairness? 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶11. (SBU) Interestingly, one of the United Russia candidates who 
has officially won one of the allegedly stolen seats (para 10) 
has stated that he is willing to forego his "victory" and 
support the Yabloko candidate's case.  The YR candidate blames 
the alleged fraud on the local city district administrator, who 
allegedly created obstacles not only for opposition candidates 
but also for many United Russia candidates new to the party and 
who apparently threatened the old boys' network in that 
district.  This statement corresponds with the opinion of some 
local commentators who noted that United Russia's ranks were not 
unified in the election, and that there was some significant 
infighting between different factions of pro-government 
candidates. 
 
¶12. (SBU) St. Petersburg City Election Commission officials have 
been generally reticent regarding the March 1 municipal 
elections.  Commission members explain that election law does 
not grant them much power, and that as such local election 
disputes should be resolved through the local district election 
commissions and through the courts.  Though their ability to 
enforce fairness in subsequent elections is limited, most senior 
City Election Commission officials agree that it would make 
sense to ease the registration rules and so minimize the 
problems seen in this election cycle. 
 
¶13. (SBU) Comment.  It is highly unlikely that United Russia's 
electoral victory was due entirely to fraud, as the party has a 
significant base of support in the city.  However, it also seems 
undeniable that the elections were held on an uneven playing 
field in an environment which heavily favored United Russia.  We 
are unlikely to ever know the real extent of electoral 
manipulation that went on before, during, and directly after the 
election, given the local authorities' apparent reluctance to 
investigate allegations of fraud.  United Russia has built up an 
effective election winning machine in the city.  This machine is 
unlikely to be dislodged without the emergence of both 
significant issues around which the opposition can rally and a 
profound change in the political culture that will no longer 
tolerate egregious electoral shenanigans.  End Comment. 
 
 
GWALTNEY