Administrative and legal aspects of voter information in the Russian Federation

Denisov Yurii Petrovich PhD in Politics Associate Professor of the Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law, Siberian Law University 644048, Russia, Omsk region, Omsk, 48 K. Marx Ave., sq. 60 yurden1984@yandex.ru Staurskii Evgenii Stanislavovich PhD in Technical Science Associate Professor of the Department of Economic Theory and Financial Law, Omsk Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation 644092, Russia, Omsk region, Omsk, Komarova str., 7 Ses-QQ@yandex.ru

Staurskii Stanislav Stanislavovich PhD in Economics Associate Professor of the Department of Economics and Management, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (Omsk Branch) 35 Krasnogvardeyskaya str., office 1P, Omsk region, 644043, Russia Sss-QQ@yandex.ru

The famous Russian philosopher and statesman I. A. Ilyin wrote: "The state is an institution that seeks, in the corporate spirit and in the corporate form, people's trust and strength, and therefore honors the freedom of its citizens and seeks their sympathy and assistance..." In this regard, he believed that the entire electoral system should be permeated by "organically spiritual unity of the government with the people and the people with the government." ^{[1, p. 25]}.

From the perspective of modern Russian law, the functioning of the electoral system is often viewed through the prism of the realization of citizens' rights. Part 2 of Article 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation enshrines the right of citizens to elect and be elected to State and local government bodies, as well as the right to participate in a referendum. According to Russian electoral legislation, elections are "a form of direct expression of the will of citizens, carried out in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal laws, constitutions (charters), laws of subjects of the Russian Federation, charters of municipalities in order to form a public authority, a local government body or empower an official." This provision, in particular, is enshrined in part 9 of Article 2 of the Federal Law "On Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right of Citizens of the Russian Federation to Participate in a Referendum."

Elections as an institution of direct democracy are of great value for the citizen, the state and the socio-political life of the country as a whole. ^{[2, p. 11]}. At the same time, elections as a political and legal mechanism include not only an act of popular will, but also a set of administrative procedures. And the management of the electoral process is one of the types of public administration. ^{[3, p. 209]}.

In general, the institution of elections in the Russian Federation and the electoral process are characterized by a fairly high degree of research in modern scientific literature. Much attention in modern academic discourse is paid to the possibilities of implementing new technologies in the information support of elections and referendums, problems and prospects for the development of electronic voting. However, the administrative and legal aspects of informing voters largely remain "outside the brackets" of detailed research. Our research is designed to fill this gap to some extent. Indeed, in the conditions of modern socio-political and technological realities, the most important aspect of public administration of the electoral process is the administration of voter information carried out by public authorities.

The methodological basis of the study was a systematic approach. It allows us not only to comprehend voter information as part of the election information support system, but also to analyze the administrative and legal mechanism for informing voters as a set of inextricably interrelated and interacting elements organized into a single whole. During the research, we used an extensive range of scientific methods. It includes formal logical, comparative legal, statistical, sociological methods, as well as a method for analyzing specific legal situations.

We interpret the concept of "public administration" on the basis of the works of A.M. Voronov, A.M. Gogolev ^[4], V. V. Denisenko ^[5], A. B. Zelentsov, O. A. Yastrebov ^[6]. Using the theoretical and methodological developments of these scientists, we consider public administration of voter information as an organizational and managerial activity of public authorities and other entities exercising administrative, administrative and protective powers aimed at bringing to the attention of voters objective and reliable information related to elections that does not have the character of election campaigning. In this perspective, the object of public administration of voter information is the managerial relations between participants in the public administrative system during the electoral process, aimed at providing information about elections and respecting and facilitating the realization of the rights and legitimate interests of participants in the electoral process related to it. As a subject of public administration of voter information, a system of legal measures and organizational measures that constitute an organizational and legal mechanism for the implementation by public administration bodies of their tasks related to providing voters with objective and reliable information about elections can be considered.

The mechanism of informing voters in the Russian Federation is directly regulated by articles 44-47 of the Federal Law "On Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right of Citizens of the Russian Federation to Participate in a Referendum." According to article 44 of this law, information support for elections and referendums includes informing voters, referendum participants, pre-election campaigning, campaigning on referendum issues and promotes the conscious expression of the will of citizens, the transparency of elections and referendums. It follows from this that informing voters and referendum participants is one of the two components of the information support system for elections and referendums.

Election campaigning, referendum campaigning is the second component of information support for elections and referendums. In the course of public administration of the electoral process, governing bodies need to clearly distinguish between campaigning and informing. Such a distinction between them is made in paragraph 108 of Resolution No. 24 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated June 27, 2023 "On certain issues arising during the consideration by the courts of administrative cases on the protection of electoral rights and the right to participate in a referendum of citizens of the Russian Federation". It reads: "Unlike campaigning, informing does not aim to encourage voting for a certain candidate, lists of candidates or against him (them), to support the initiative to hold a referendum or to refuse such support, to vote or to refuse to vote in a referendum, to support or reject a question put to a referendum." Thus, the distinction between voter information and election campaigning, as two different types of activities, two different components of election information support, is based on a special purpose for which each of them is carried out. Voter information is a systematic activity carried out during the entire election campaign to bring to the attention of voters objective and reliable information related to elections and not of a campaigning nature.

If, under the guise of informing voters, the subjects committed actions recognized as election campaigning, then such actions may form the objective side of the composition of administrative offenses provided for in Articles 5.5, 5.8, 5.11, 5.12 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (hereinafter - the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation). However, an analysis of these articles of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation shows that none of them contains the composition of an administrative offense dedicated directly to violating the procedure for informing voters. Mostly, the listed norms assume administrative responsibility only for violating the procedure for conducting election campaigning and campaigning on referendum issues.

It cannot be excluded that "black" PR technologies may be implemented in practice during the election campaign. In this case, the propaganda purpose of presenting information to the voter may be intentionally veiled. It is no coincidence that it is the campaigning activities of election campaign participants that cause a lot of mutual claims, requiring the participation of relevant committees of election commissions at different levels, and periodically judicial bodies, to resolve them. ^{[7, p. 57]}. Of course, based on the analysis of the current legislation, other criteria can be identified to distinguish between voter information and election campaigning. These include criteria such as the specialized subject of distribution of materials and the subject of their perception; a certain time period established by law; the content of materials; the frequency of their distribution; the source of payment; special labeling of manufactured materials. However, these criteria require specialized interpretation, since they do not have clear formulations and in practice many questions arise both from regulatory authorities and law enforcement entities in the process of determining the objectivity, reliability and equality of rights of candidates when publishing a particular material. ^{[8, p. 45]}.

The subjects of voter information are actually defined in article 45 of the Federal Law "On Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right of Citizens of the Russian Federation to Participate in a Referendum." The first part of this article states that "informing voters and participants of the referendum is carried out by state authorities, local governments, commissions, organizations that produce mass media, editorial offices of online publications, individuals and legal entities in accordance with this Federal Law." He also imposes restrictions on state authorities and local self-government bodies, which "do not have the right to inform voters about candidates, about electoral associations." In the third part of the above article, on the contrary, it is established that informing voters and referendum participants, including through the mass media, about the preparation and conduct of elections, referendums, the timing and procedure for electoral actions, actions to participate in a referendum, about the legislation of the Russian Federation on elections and referendums, about candidates, electoral associations are carried out by commissions. Commissions are election commissions and referendum commissions, that is, collegial bodies formed in accordance with the procedure and deadlines established by law, organizing and ensuring the preparation and conduct of elections or referendums. The commissions also take the necessary measures to inform voters and referendum participants who are disabled.

Specific sets of measures to ensure that voters are informed in the process of public administration of elections are established by acts of election commissions. In particular, a set of measures to ensure that voters are informed about registered candidates for the post of President of the Russian Federation, about political parties that nominated candidates for the eighth presidential election of the Russian Federation, was approved by Resolution No. 147/1161-8 of the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation dated 05.01.2024. In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Law "On the Election of the President of the Russian Federation", it establishes a hierarchy of subjects that, within their powers, inform voters about registered candidates for the post of President of the Russian Federation, about political parties that have nominated candidates. At the top of the hierarchy is the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the CEC of the Russian Federation), which provides information to voters in the territory of the Russian Federation and beyond. Further down the hierarchy are the following: election commissions of the subjects of the Russian Federation, territorial election commissions, precinct election commissions. Each commission provides information to voters in a clearly defined territory and on the basis of information received from a higher commission. The provision of information to persons with disabilities during elections in the Russian Federation is also clearly regulated. For these purposes, Resolution No. 262/1933-7 of the CEC of Russia dated 07/29/2020 "On Recommendations on ensuring the electoral Rights of citizens of the Russian Federation who are disabled during elections in the Russian Federation" was adopted.

All subjects of voter information are subject to the requirements for the content of information materials posted in the mass media or distributed in another way. The content must be objective, reliable, and must not violate the equality of candidates and electoral associations.

At the same time, if election commissions are required to use clearly regulated sources of information, other subjects of informing voters do not actually have such restrictions. On the contrary, in part 4 of Article 45 of the federal law "On Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation" it is stipulated that organizations that produce mass media, editorial offices of online publications are free in their activities to inform voters, participants of the referendum, carried out in accordance with federal laws. On the one hand, in this way, transparency and openness of the electoral process are ultimately guaranteed. On the other hand, this circumstance raises the problem of reliability and representativeness of the information source.

The need to comply with the principle of freedom of publication in voter information activities is also linked to the problem of terminological confusion, which can mislead voters. In particular, the essence of the concept of "candidate" is not completely clear. In article 2 of the federal law "On Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation", the term "candidate" is defined as "a person nominated in accordance with the procedure established by this Federal Law or another law as a candidate for a position to be filled through direct elections or for membership in a body (chamber of a body) of state power or a local government body, or registered by the relevant election commission as a candidate." This definition covers at least two different statuses of a participant in the electoral process: "nominated candidate" and "registered candidate". However, these statuses at the level of domestic federal legislation do not have unambiguous definitions. The existing uncertainty leads to the fact that both "nominated candidates" and "registered candidates" in the media discourse are labeled with the general category "candidate", often without clarification. This practice carries the potential for political and legal disorientation of a part of the electoral field.

This problem fully manifested itself during the 2024 presidential election campaign. During its course, both registered candidates from parliamentary parties (Leonid Slutsky (LDPR), Nikolai Kharitonov (KPRF) and Vladislav Davankov (New People)) and "nominated candidates" were actively positioned in the media environment as "candidates for the post of President of the Russian Federation" in the same time period. The latter included politicians who received widespread media support, but did not pass the registration procedure with the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation in accordance with the established procedure: Boris Nadezhdin (Civil Initiative), Sergey Malinkovich (Communists of Russia), Irina Sviridova (Democratic Party of Russia). The Chairman of the CEC of the Russian Federation, E.A. Pamfilova, drew attention to the current situation, stating: "My colleagues and I have consulted and after the election campaign we will ask, we will make a proposal to our legislators in order to streamline this high rank, the status of a presidential candidate. As we can see now, this has happened in previous campaigns and now, when, for example, 33 people have been nominated and they have even sneezed three times without passing any stages provided for by law and already call themselves candidates."^[9].

Along with the expediency of leveling the above-described problems of improving public administration of voter information, the prospects and challenges that the state and society face in the context of increasing digitalization require. Reflecting on the changes taking place, T. Y. Khabrieva concludes that "digital technologies are able to change the image of law, influence its regulatory potential and effectiveness, open the way or block its action in new dimensions of social reality" ^{[10, p. 15]}. And A.Y. Mamychev believes that "widespread digitalization leads to the formation of a new a socio-normative matrix, with its own ideological system, the structure of socio-technological needs, a specific organization (social physics), a normative system (socio-behavioral engineering), etc." ^{[11, p. 59]}. In these conditions, informing voters turns out to be closely linked to the informatization of the electoral process.

As a result of the new "technological revolution" that took place in the 2010s, the administrative and legal regulation of the exercise of citizens' electoral rights around the world faced the consequences of changing the entire range of communication practices and the avalanche-like spread of personal electronic devices (gadgets). For example, in the United States, from December 2010 to December 2014, the use of smartphones increased by 394%, and tablets by as much as 1721%. Based on this kind of data, the well-known European researcher of electoral issues, G. K. Hanschitz, formulated the question: "Today, all everyday tasks can be performed using mobile devices via the Internet, but why can't we vote online?" ^[12]. In fact, the answer to this question is the possibility of electronic voting, which is becoming more widespread in different countries of the world. It, in turn, entails the digitalization of all administrative and regulatory practices related to the electoral process.

Pakistani scientists K. Khan, J. Arshad, M. Khan note that electronic voting has been used in various forms since the 1970s and has fundamental advantages over paper systems, such as increased efficiency and reduced errors. However, on the way to widespread implementation of such innovative systems, researchers note serious problems, especially with regard to increasing their resistance to potential failures. Scientists associate the prospects for further digitalization of the electoral process with blockchain technology, which promises to increase the overall stability of electronic voting systems. ^[13]. Electronic voting schemes based on blockchain technology, including the organization of electronic voter information, are proposed by both Chinese researcher Haibo Yi ^[14] and Turkish researchers Ruhi Tash and Omer Tanriover ^[15]. At the same time, these researchers point to the vulnerability of blockchain technology.

In the Russian Federation, the digitalization of the electoral process in general and voter information in particular started quite a long time ago. An important milestone in the administrative and legal regulation of this trend was the adoption in 2003 of the federal law "On the State Automated System of the Russian Federation "Elections". Its preamble stipulates that "the use of the State Automated System of the Russian Federation "Elections" in the preparation and conduct of elections and referendums is one of the guarantees for the realization of the rights of citizens of the Russian Federation on the basis of ensuring transparency, reliability, efficiency and completeness of information about elections and referendums." And in accordance with Article 4 of this law, one of the principles of the use, operation and development of GAS "Elections" is "prompt informing of voters, referendum participants about the course and results of elections and referendums."

In March 2024, remote electronic voting (DEG) was used in the presidential elections of the Russian Federation in 29 constituent entities of the Russian Federation. In 28 regions of Russia, voters have the opportunity to have a verified account on the Portal of Public Services of the Russian Federation (gosuslugi.ru ) and the submitted application to vote online using the Remote Electronic Voting Portal of the CEC of Russia (vybory.gov.ru ), and in the federal city of Moscow – using a regional voting platform mos.ru . These portals were also intensively used to inform voters.

Along with this, on February 17, 2024, targeted voter information about the upcoming presidential elections of the Russian Federation was launched within the framework of the InformUIK project. From February 17 to March 7, 2024, about 330 thousand members of precinct election commissions carried out house-to-house and apartment-by-apartment rounds of voters in order to "answer citizens' questions about the course of the election campaign, registered candidates, voting forms and mechanisms that will make the process of expressing their will as convenient and comfortable as possible."^[16].

Informing voters "eye to eye" certainly has its advantages. It makes it possible to find an individual approach to each recipient of information, allows employees to make sure that the information has reached its destination and has been correctly interpreted, gives a sense of direct, live communication between a representative of a public authority and a voter. However, it is not perceived by all groups as the preferred channel for obtaining information.

In January 2024, we conducted a small survey among the student youth of the city of Omsk. The sample included 100 people who have reached the age of 18, studying at four major universities in our city. They were asked in what form they would prefer to receive information about the upcoming elections: in electronic form or in the form of personal communication with a member of the election commission during an apartment-by-apartment tour. 89% of respondents preferred to receive information in electronic form, 10% - in the form of personal communication with a member of the election commission during an apartment-by-apartment tour, 1% found it difficult to answer. Answering the question about the most preferred method of voting, the majority of respondents (57%) considered SMS notifications to be the most convenient way to inform or remind about voting. 12% named e—mail messages, 5% - notifications on social networks, 5% - through a special mobile application. At the same time, answering the question of in what form, in their opinion, their parents would prefer to receive this information, 54% of respondents chose the option "in the form of personal communication with a member of the election commission during an apartment-by-apartment tour", 32% - the option "in electronic form", 14% found it difficult to answer. It is also worth noting that during the conducted sociological survey, 75% of respondents admitted that they might not open the door to representatives of the Election Commission for various reasons. And 7% of respondents said that they never open and do not recommend their loved ones to open the door to strangers, even if they are represented by representatives of public authorities.

The above results of the sociological survey indicate, albeit indirectly, the existing age differences in the channels of information preferred by voters. These differences can be characterized as differences between "fathers" and "children". "Fathers" prefer to receive information in the course of personal live communication, by word of mouth, looking eye to eye. "Children" are more cybersocialized and less focused on offline communication. They prefer to draw information about elections in cyberspace, with the opportunity to perceive and comprehend it at a convenient time for them. Understanding this circumstance inevitably leads us to the conclusion about the prospects of using Internet technologies in the process of informing voters. From this perspective, it seems quite logical that along with the project on targeted voter information, the CEC of the Russian Federation uses Internet technologies.

In general, this problem certainly did not prevent public authorities at a high level from administering information support during the eighth presidential election of the Russian Federation, held on March 15-17, 2024. According to a survey by the All–Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion (VTSIOM) dated February 17, 2024, the level of awareness of Russians about the upcoming presidential elections of the Russian Federation was 86%: 82% correctly named the month and year /time of the year and their year, 4% - only the year. ^[17]. The turnout for these elections was a record, amounting to 77.44%.^[18]. The Resolution of the CEC of Russia dated March 21, 2024 No. 163/1291-8 "On the results of the presidential elections of the Russian Federation scheduled for March 17, 2024" recorded that 76,277,708 votes were cast for the incumbent president. This represents 87.28% of the votes cast. According to VTSIOM, on March 19, 2024, 85% of Russians got acquainted with the election results, 72% expressed confidence in the presented election results. ^[19].

However, in the context of Russia's special military operation (SVO), acute geostrategic and military-political threats, the Russian electoral system has faced powerful challenges in the information environment. The official Internet portal of the CEC of Russia, which is the most important state Internet resource providing information to voters, has been subjected to cyber attacks. According to E. A. Pamfilova, presented to Rossiyskaya Gazeta, since the beginning of the voting, 18 thousand potentially dangerous impacts on the site have been recorded. ^[20]. During the pre-election period and during the elections, information about the holding of an unauthorized protest action "Noon against Putin" actually spread in cyberspace. In most cases, the dissemination of this information did not aim to encourage voting for a certain candidate, lists of candidates or against him (them). However, it aimed to encourage citizens to show up at polling stations on a certain day and at a certain time (March 17, 2024, at 12:00), in order to negatively demonstrate their attitude towards one of the candidates, the current President of the Russian Federation, V.V. Putin. ^[21]. Another acute challenge was a series of attacks on polling stations in the form of deliberate damage to ballots in ballot boxes, arson, detonation of firecrackers, etc., which were committed by persons who were influenced by cyber fraudsters from abroad.

The leveling of these challenges largely lies in the criminal legal plane. At the time of writing this article, investigative actions are being carried out in many episodes related to the problems described above within the framework of the work of authorized public authorities. However, the very fact of the emergence and fixation of such challenges for the administrative and legal regulation of the electoral process allows us to raise the question of the possibilities of further introducing a special administrative and legal regime during the pre-election period and the election period. This regime would imply temporary restrictions on the legal personality of individuals and legal entities in the field of communication and information, aimed at ensuring the possibility of safe and free exercise of citizens' electoral rights. A thorough analysis of the possibilities for the introduction and specific content of such an administrative and legal regime should be the subject of a separate study.

However, already at this stage, based on all of the above, we can draw a number of conclusions and recommendations. Quite logical steps towards the development of administrative and legal regulation of voter information could be: firstly, clarifying the status of a candidate and legislative differentiation of the statuses of "registered" and "nominated candidates"; secondly, clearer legal regulation of the mechanism for informing voters carried out by various entities; thirdly, the introduction of administrative responsibility directly for violations in the field of voter information.

The administrative and legal mechanism for informing voters is a highly organized, complex system that cannot exist in an absolutely static state. Its dynamic and effective development is one of the conditions for the successful functioning of a unified system of public authority in modern Russia.