After invalidating the results from three polling stations, the Central Electoral Commission should have considered organizing a repeat vote because the violations in question had a direct impact on the final election outcome. This opinion was expressed by election-process expert Mariam Hoveyan.
According to her, the Electoral Code does not automatically require a repeat vote whenever results are annulled. However, it gives the CEC the authority to determine whether the violations significantly affected the election results.
The Issue Was About Numbers, Not Interpretations
Hoveyan argues that this case was based on objective calculations rather than political assessments.
“The recount demonstrated that if the results from the three polling stations had not been invalidated, the distribution of parliamentary mandates would have changed and one additional party would have gained representation in parliament. This means the decision directly affected the overall election outcome,” she stated.
At the same time, she believes that invalidating the disputed results was necessary because public concerns regarding the voting of military personnel could have seriously undermined trust in the election.
However, according to Hoveyan, that same circumstance also created grounds for a repeat vote.
Repeat Voting Is Not an Extraordinary Mechanism
The expert stresses that repeat voting is not an exceptional or emergency instrument.
It is explicitly предусмотрено by the Electoral Code and may be applied in elections at all levels, from local communities to nationwide contests.
“Repeat voting is specifically designed for disputed situations. If the law allows such a mechanism even in small municipal elections, there is no reason to avoid using it when violations have affected the outcome of a nationwide vote,” she emphasized.
The Final Decision Was Effectively Left to the Constitutional Court
According to Hoveyan, instead of providing a definitive political and legal assessment, the Central Electoral Commission chose a more cautious approach.
In practice, she argues, the final resolution of the dispute was transferred to the Constitutional Court.
She believes this approach could weaken public confidence in electoral institutions.
Citizens Were Told Every Vote Matters
Hoveyan recalled that throughout the election campaign state institutions and the CEC repeatedly encouraged citizens to vote, emphasizing that every vote could be decisive.
“We constantly told people that a single vote could determine the outcome. Yet when a situation emerged in which several votes could genuinely change the political picture, that principle was not applied. This may create the opposite impression and reduce participation in future elections,” she said.
Constitutional Court Review Is the Next Step
The expert also discussed the legal procedures that may follow.
According to her, political parties and alliances that participated in the elections have the right to appeal to the Constitutional Court, with the CEC acting as the respondent.
Under the law, the Court has fifteen days to examine the case and issue a ruling.
Hoveyan notes that the Court may either uphold the CEC’s decision or invalidate it and order a new vote count or other legal measures.
Repeat Voting Also Carries Risks
At the same time, she highlights another important issue connected to the repeat-voting mechanism.
Under the Electoral Code, if serious violations occur again during a repeat vote and affect the outcome, a nationwide repeat election could theoretically become necessary.
“The risk is that repeat voting in individual polling stations could be deliberately disrupted through boycotts or other forms of interference. In theory, this could then create demands for a nationwide repeat election. The situation is complex, and legal solutions also carry their own risks,” Hoveyan concluded.