Tymoshenko to appeal against CEC decision permitting home voting during presidential election

Print version
Jan. 5, 2010, 3:17 p.m. | Politics — by Interfax-Ukraine
Current Prime Minister of Ukraine and presidential candidate Yulia Tymoshenko has said she intends to file an appeal in the courts against a decision of the Central Election Commission to permit voters to vote at home during the presidential election. She said this at a press conference on Tuesday before her departure for Vinnytsia region.

"Today we will address the court... so as to stop and cancel the decision of the CEC that gives people the right... to vote at home," she said.

She also added that if the CEC decision is not canceled by January 8, "we will call an extraordinary sitting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine."
The Kyiv Post is hosting comments to foster lively debate. Criticism is fine, but stick to the issues. Comments that include profanity or personal attacks will be removed from the site. If you think that a posted comment violates these standards, please flag it and alert us. We will take steps to block violators.
Anonymous Jan. 5, 2010, 9:05 p.m.    

And her grounds for the appeal being? In any democratic election voters who are unable to attend a polling pace should have the right to cast a vote. In western democracies this is achieved by either the right to pre-poll (Cast a vote before polling day), a postal vote or an absentee vote. The votes are placed in an envelop and forwarded to the relevant electoral authority and the voters name is marked as having voted in the electoral role so as to avoid any possibility of double voting. The signature on the application for a postal/absentee vote is cross checked and if satisfactory the ballot paper is removed from the envelope and admitted to the count. It is a relatively straight forward process that is subject to scrutiny and appropriate checks and balance. To arbitrarily deny a person the right to cast a vote is a wrong. Yulia must establish facts and demonstrate beyond doubt that the person applying for a vote should be denied the right to vote. This article provides no evidence or basis of any complaint warranting serious consideration. If she has evidence then she must present it in order to substantiate her claim

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Jan. 5, 2010, 9:09 p.m.    

To deny a person the right to caste a home vote would be contrary to the international convention on political rights as it would be demanded discriminatory. Persons who are invalid or incapacitated and unable to attend the polling place have equal rights to cast a ballot as any other person.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Jan. 5, 2010, 10:42 p.m.    

I agree but Yulia clearly doesnt give a crap about any rights except her own to be president and do what ever she wants

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Jan. 6, 2010, 1:21 a.m.    

Not everyone in Western democracies have the right to vote. In the USA a person convicted of a felony loses the right to vote after release from jail. The ex-convict must appeal to the State Governor to have their voting reights restored. In some States such as Virginia ex-convicts lose their right to vote for life.

As to the question of postal voting.

Postal voting has been used in the UK, and shown to be open to abuse and fraud

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Jan. 6, 2010, 2:26 a.m.    

IN some countries you lose the right to vote if you are convicted of a criminal offense that occurs 5 years or mare jail. But comparing serious crimes to someone whop is disabled is not a realistic or relevant comparison in this case.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Jan. 6, 2010, 5:57 a.m.    

Wouldn't work too well in former Soviet countries though, would it? Or do you think that someone sentenced for "anti-Soviet behaviour" should have his/her right to vote/stand for election revoked?

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Jan. 6, 2010, 12:17 a.m.    

It would be interesting to know why she has taken this position.

In the past, this home voting has been subject to a fair amount of corrupted votes.

There are ways to prevent that, but so far from what I have read, it indicates that no one is interested.

Without having any knowledge about her reasons, it is pretty silly to say she isn't interested in allowing others to vote. But...I'm guessing the author of that statement isn't too concerned about accuracy, ony in criticizing Yulia.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Jan. 6, 2010, 2:31 a.m.    

Can you provide specific examples and quantify the extent of corruption you refer to? Or are you just echoing allegations that have not been proven? Ukraine has only just recently established an electoral role with the assistance from the OSCE. If the role has been certified then it would be that much harder to rig the election and go unnoticed. You do not ban people from driving because one a few people have speeding fines. People have a right to vote and should not be disenfranchised without just cause.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Jan. 6, 2010, 2:34 a.m.    

Yulia is blowing her trumpet on this one without and cause or justification. She is best advised to secure support from disabled voters as opposed to seeking to deny them the right to vote. She will lose this argument in the Constitutional court and rightly so. She looks desperate and undemocratic in her efforts.

{# <-- parent id goes here
Anonymous Jan. 10, 2010, 12:43 a.m.    

The misleading article and the bulk of the posts simply prove that the universe and stupidity are infinite. {The universe is still guestionable.)

The CEC, controlled by LilliPutin's poodle Yanukovych, inserted this provision at the last moment. The concept of house calls with ballot boxes is ludicrous and is rejected by all self-respecting democratic systems. How do you control chain of custody, the opportunity for voter intimidation and/or the thrashing of inconvenient ballots?

Ms. YVT is requesting, at a minimum, that incapacitated voters provide a doctor's certificate. This doesn't eliminate the aforementioned malfeasance; however, it does add a pinch of complexity. The very idea that Ms. YVT would wish to disenfranchise some of her own supporters is imbecilic.

I should remind you that Mr. Yanukovych and his co-conspirators stole the 2004 run-off election and should be rotting in jail, as we speak. Furthermore, he has spent two years in the slammer for rape and robbery and, as a felon, does not qualify as a candidate for dog catcher.

All of you guest posters and Yanukovych nut-huggers should try to re-establish contact with reality if you aren't already beyond redemption.

{# <-- parent id goes here


© 1995–2014 Public Media

Web links to Kyiv Post material are allowed provided that they contain a URL hyperlink to the material and a maximum 500-character extract of the story. Otherwise, all materials contained on this site are protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced without the prior written permission of Public Media at
All information of the Interfax-Ukraine news agency placed on this web site is designed for internal use only. Its reproduction or distribution in any form is prohibited without a written permission of Interfax-Ukraine.