Armenian scholar warns election commission's decision risks undermining democracy

An Armenian legal expert has accused the country’s Central Electoral Commission (CEC) of setting a “dangerous precedent” by refusing to order a re-vote at disputed precincts following the June 7 parliamentary elections.

In a social media post on Tuesday. Arsen Tavadyan, a candidate of legal sciences and associate professor at Yerevan State University, said the CEC misused a Venice Commission opinion to justify inaction. The commission argued that partial re-votes could allow voters to cast ballots tactically, knowing preliminary results. Tavadyan countered that while the Venice Commission acknowledged such risks, it also stressed that violations capable of affecting results must trigger effective remedies.

“The CEC’s stance is not a legal argument but a manipulation,” Tavadyan wrote. “If partial re-voting is deemed inappropriate, the next question should be what remedy is proper — not whether to ignore the violation altogether.”

Armenia’s electoral code provides two options: ordering a re-vote at specific polling stations or calling new parliamentary elections. By dismissing both, Tavadyan said, the CEC effectively created a “third path” — recognizing violations but leaving them without consequence.

He warned that such logic risks turning serious violations into guarantees of impunity. “This approach transforms electoral law into a formality serving political convenience,” he said.

Tavadyan also noted that the Venice Commission’s 2025 urgent report was drafted in the context of Romania’s 2024 presidential elections, where the Constitutional Court annulled the first-round results. He argued that citing this document to justify leaving Armenia’s election results untouched was “shooting itself in the foot.”

The dispute now rests with Armenia’s Constitutional Court, which must decide whether electoral violations carry enforceable consequences. Tavadyan cautioned that if the court upholds the CEC’s position, it will set a precedent allowing future violations to remain unaddressed whenever remedies are deemed politically inconvenient.

“This is no longer just an electoral dispute,” he said. “It is a matter of constitutional order.”