The Constitutional Court (SC) admitted five cases for consideration. All with the subject of contesting the legality of the October 27 elections for people’s representatives in the 51st National Assembly. The court combined the five cases for general consideration, informed the institution.
In the cases, the court allowed an expert to count the votes cast by paper ballot and by machine ballot in 1,777 polling stations, to establish whether the number of actual votes cast by candidate lists (parties, coalitions, independent candidate) corresponded of the entries in the protocol of the relevant sectional election commission.
In addition, the expertise must establish whether the number of actual votes cast by machine voting ballots on candidate lists (parties, coalitions, independent candidate) corresponds to the information from the memory of the specialized voting device.
The experts must also answer whether the protocols of the sectional election commissions under Art. 273 of the Election Code are drawn up in accordance with the requirements of Art. 274, para. 3 of the Electoral Code.
Another task is to establish whether in 442 polling stations the number of those entered in the protocol under Art. 273 of the Election Code as invalid ballots corresponds to the number of available invalid ballots handed over to the district election commissions by the section election commissions.
The term of the expertise is until January 10 next year, BTA adds.
The SC obliged the Central Electoral Commission to provide the expertise with the electoral papers of the specified sections.
In addition, the CEC, within a two-week period, should present information on the reasons why the polling stations, for which the exception from the Election Code does not exist, did not carry out real-time video surveillance and video recording after the announcement of the end of the election day during the counting and compilation of votes of the protocol, as well as a list of voters sections, in respect of which the exception of art. 57, para. 1, item 34 of the Electoral Code;
Also, within a three-week period, he should submit information about the actions carried out after the deadline under Art. 89, para. 1 and 2 of the Electoral Code changes in the composition of the sectional election commissions – total number of changes, distribution by week, on whose proposal they were made (of the commission member, of a political party or coalition, of another entity), has the original ratio been preserved of the political parties and coalitions in the sectional election commission under Art. 92, para. 6 of the Electoral Code, on what factual/legal basis the change was made.
The definitions were adopted unanimously by eleven votes.
#Supreme #Court #admitted #cases #contesting #elections
What are the potential legal ramifications of the Constitutional Court’s decision, and how might this impact future elections and political discourse in Bulgaria?
## World Today News Exclusive: Unpacking the Bulgarian Election Challenges
Welcome to World Today News! Today, we delve into the heart of Bulgarian democracy, dissecting the recent Constitutional Court decision regarding the contested October 27th elections. Joining us are two distinguished guests:
**Dr. Maria Petrova,** a leading expert in electoral law and constitutional jurisprudence, and **Mr. Stefan Ivanov,** a political scientist specializing in Bulgarian political dynamics.
**Section 1: Setting the Scene**
* **Host:** Dr. Petrova, can you provide our viewers with some context on why the Constitutional Court has decided to take up these five cases? What are the central concerns raised by the contesting parties?
* **Dr. Petrova:**
* **Host:** Mr. Ivanov, how significant is this move by the Constitutional Court? What does it tell us about the current political climate in Bulgaria?
* **Mr. Ivanov:**
**Section 2: Dissecting the Expertise**
* **Host:** The Court has ordered a detailed expert analysis of voting data from over 1,700 polling stations. Dr. Petrova, what specific aspects of the voting process will this expertise focus on, and what kind of impact could its findings have?
* **Dr. Petrova:**
* **Host:** Mr. Ivanov, some critics argue that this level of scrutiny undermines public trust in the electoral system. Do you agree? How can the transparency of the process be balanced with the need to ensure public confidence?
* **Mr. Ivanov:**
**Section 3: Questioning the Process**
* **Host:** The court’s decision also demands answers from the Central Electoral Commission (CEC) regarding the lack of real-time video surveillance in some polling stations. Dr. Petrova, what potential vulnerabilities does this highlight, and how might it affect the integrity of the election results?
* **Dr. Petrova:**
* **Host:** Mr. Ivanov, how common is this practice of not employing real-time surveillance in Bulgarian elections? What are the arguments for and against it, and are there potential solutions to address concerns about transparency?
* **Mr. Ivanov:**
**Section 4: Looking Ahead**
* **Host:** The deadline for the expertise is January 10th. Dr. Petrova, what are the potential scenarios that could emerge from these findings, and what implications could they have for the political landscape in Bulgaria?
* **Dr. Petrova:**
* **Host:** Mr. Ivanov, regardless of the outcome, what lessons can Bulgarian democracy learn from this experience, and how can it strengthen its electoral processes for future elections?
* **Mr. Ivanov:**
**Closing**
* **Host:** Thank you both for illuminating this complex and crucial topic. This interview has provided valuable insights into the challenges facing Bulgarian democracy and the potential impact of the Constitutional Court’s decision.
We encourage our viewers to stay informed and engaged in the ongoing discussions surrounding these important developments.
Remember to subscribe to World Today News for continued coverage of global events and in-depth analysis.
