Civil Network OPORA had been conducting an expert poll from August 26 to September 26, 2019, dedicated to administrative resource in prisons during the last presidential and parliamentary elections. Our main goal was to find out the opinion of the human rights environment on whether the voting in prisons was free, to identify problems in organization of the voting process in prisons and typical violations there. The poll summarizes assessments from human rights defenders and OPORA's electoral rights ombudsmen, who visited prisons and contacted prisoners. Thus, 77 experts from the regions of Ukraine and Kyiv participated in the survey. The survey also includes an analysis of election outcomes at precincts in prisons, where administrative resource was probably applied.

Survey summary

  • Most of experts haven't noticed any cases when information posters about presidential candidates, candidates for MPs, and party programs were not available in PECs located in prisons.
  • The vast majority of experts believe that voters in prisons have had a properly organised secret ballot in the last parliamentary and presidential elections.
  • Most of experts did not receive information about the use of force, threatening, fraud, bribery or any other activities that hinder free vote on behalf of prison administrations and unofficial leaders among prisoners.
  • Most of survey participants did not receive information about forced participation or non-participation in elections and control over the turnout by prison administrations.
  • Most of experts did not receive information about cases when prisoners were offered bribes to vote for a certain candidate or political party.
  • Respondents did not receive information about candidates or their representatives holding meetings with voters in prisons. 
  • Most of respondents did not receive information about voting process being organised in different facilities at the same election precinct.
  • The vast majority of experts believe that adequate material and technical support at polling stations (booths and ballot boxes) in prisons (detention facilities) was guaranteed during presidential and parliamentary elections. 
  • Administrative pressure might have been applied to prisoners at some precincts to influence their choice in presidential and early parliamentary elections.

Block 1. What the experts say

  1. 88.3% of experts, who participated in the survey, haven't noticed any cases when information posters about presidential candidates, candidates for MPs, and party programs were not available in PECs located in prisons. 5.2% of the experts said there were such cases in the presidential or parliamentary elections. 2.6% of experts know about similar cases in the presidential and parliamentary elections. The same percentage of experts know about such cases only during parliamentary elections. Another 1.3% - only during the presidential campaign.

“In colony #14 in Odessa, information posters were placed outside, but not inside the voting premises. But the citizens who were brought by the colony administration to vote did not have an opportunity to go back outside and see the posters. However, they had questions and said they need to see information materials. Besides that, the materials were placed in prisons in Odessa only on Thursday before the elections. I think that this time is not enough to learn them properly, ” - a human rights activist from Odessa oblast said. 

"Some violations were detected in Voznesenska Penal Colony #72 on the election day. In particular, there was no information about the election procedure, candidates, and programs of parties at the election precinct," - said human rights activist from Mykolaiv oblast. 

"During a meeting with prisoners at a colony in Rivne oblast in around 5 days before early parliamentary elections, the premises lacked information posters about candidates, because they hadn't been delivered to the PEC by that time. However, the administration of colony informed on the very next day that posters were received and placed in the dining room," - stated human rights activist from Rivne oblast.

  1. 77.9% of experts say that voters in prisons have had a properly organised secret ballot in the last parliamentary and presidential elections (available ballot booths, voters enter one by one, members of the election commission do not suggest and do not control how to vote). 15.6% of the respondents found it difficult to answer this question. 2.6% of experts believe that such conditions have not been met. Another 2.6% said that in some cases. 1.3% of respondents said it is true only for the parliamentary elections. 

"There is still a problem with the voting of individuals serving life imprisonment (for example, they voted in cells during the presidential election, with no booths, of course), as well as voters who are unable to move independently, particularly in hospitals, psycho-neurological dispensaries, psychiatric hospitals, and geriatric institutions," - stated human rights activist from Rivne oblast.

  1.  87% of experts did not receive information about the use of force, threatening, fraud, bribery or any other activities that hinder free vote on behalf of prison administrations. 7.8% of experts found it difficult to answer this question. 5.2% of experts told there were some similar cases in the presidential and parliamentary elections.
  2. 84.4% of respondents did not receive information about the use of force, threatening, fraud or any other activities that hinder free vote by unofficial leaders among prisoners. Another 15.6% of experts found it difficult to answer this question.
  3. 80.5% of survey participants did not receive information about forced participation or non-participation in elections and control over the turnout by prison administrations. 10.4% of the respondents found it difficult to answer this question. 6.5% of experts  told there were such cases during the presidential and parliamentary elections. Another 1.3% of experts noted such cases that occurred during the presidential or parliamentary elections. 

"I had visited one prison in Mykolaiv oblast before the presidential election, which principal informed me privately that he didn't received any "wishes" concerning support of a certain candidate, but said we received a "wish" to make 100% turnount from the above," - said human rights activist from Mykolaiv oblast.

"No one was pressed to vote directly. But no one was also explained it's possible to skip the vote. They were all forcibly brought to the polling station. The fact that the removal from the cells was not selective is confirmed by the fact that even foreign citizens were taken out. They were not allowed to vote. It seemed that voters took this as a non-alternative duty. The administration could not answer some citizens asking what to do if there is no desire to vote,” - the expert from Odessa oblast informed.

"One of correctional colonies in Kyiv oblast. Controlling the will of voters - administration says everyone must vote. In case of refusal, they made the corresponding act of refusal to vote,” - the human rights activist from Kyiv oblast said. 

“The imprisoned asked whether they must vote. After receiving a legal advice (the answer), it seemed that prisoners were told that they must exercise their right to vote without any other option. Otherwise (as some prisoners thought), they would be brought to liability. Thus, the prisoners thought that voting is an obligation, but not a choice. I should also mention information that prisoners were told for whom they may (but in fact must) vote," - a human rights activist from Dnipropetrovsk oblast said.

  1. 94.8% of experts did not receive information about cases when prisoners were offered bribes to vote for a certain candidate or political party. Another 5.2% of experts found it difficult to answer this question. 
  2. 84.4% of respondents did not receive information about candidates or their representatives holding meetings with voters in prisons. 11.7% of experts found it difficult to answer this question. 2.6% of experts  told there were such cases during parliamentary elections, and 1.3% - during the presidential election.
  3. 85.7% of experts did not receive information about cases when members of election commissions refused to give voters a ballot to vote in single-member district during the parliamentary elections. Another 10.4% of respondents told they know about such cases. 3.9% of voters found it difficult to answer this question.

"A ballot to vote in single-mandate district was issued only to voters who are included in voter list of the given district based on the State Voter Register," - a human rights activist from Ivano-Frankivsk oblast said.

"Early parliamentary elections. Chernihiv oblast. At one precinct in a prison, voters received ballots only if they were registered in the given election district," - a human rights activist from Chernihiv oblast said.

  1. 85.7% of respondents did not receive information about voting process being organised in different facilities at the same election precinct. 7.8% of respondents said they were such cases during the presidential and parliamentary elections. Another 5.2% of experts found it difficult to answer this question. 1.3% of respondents said it is true only for the presidential election. 

"Prisoners at a prison in Lviv oblast wrote applications to vote at the place of stay and commission members brought them mobile ballot boxes. In other words, life prisoners voted in their cells. In my opinion, this is a positive practice, although it requires amendments to the legislation, ” - said a human rights activist from Lviv oblast.

"In a remand prison, where I stayed, life prisoners voted separately, as well as women and men voted separately,"- said a human rights activist from Poltava oblast.

  1. 71.4% of experts believe that adequate material and technical support at polling stations (booths and ballot boxes) in prisons (detention facilities) was guaranteed during presidential and parliamentary elections. Another 19.5% of experts found it difficult to answer this question. 4.2% of experts believe that the material and technical support was inadequately organised. 3.9% of respondents said that not all polling stations were provided with the material and technical support. 

Block 2. What the data says

There were 153 polling stations in prisons in the presidential election. Yulia Tymoshenko received the most votes in prison in the first round of the presidential election. Volodymyr Zelenskyi took the second place. Then effective President Pedro Poroshenko got the third place.

OPORA has visualised the voting data at all polling stations to analyse whether administrative pressure could have been applied to prisoners in order to influence their choice. In general, polling stations where voting results are significantly different from the results at other polling stations, are the most interesting for the analysis.

OPORA wrote about such a precinct in one of its previous materials. In particular, it concerned the Pervomaisk Correctional Colony. In the first round of presidential election, Petro Poroshenko won by a considerable margin. More than 80% of prisoners (214 votes) gave their votes for him. On April 21 second round of the presidential election, twice less prisoners voted for Petro Poroshenko - 37% (94 votes). The data based on the results of two rounds could be a sign of administrative pressure in prison. However, an electoral rights ombudsman visited the prison and didn't notice any facts proving the use of administrative resource to influence the vote. It is also interesting that 92.12% (254) of prisoners voted in favor of the pro-presidential party Servant of the People during the parliamentary elections. The party received a higher percentage of support only at 6 polling stations (3 ships and 3 hospitals), but they have much smaller number of voters. For example, 10 people (100%) voted for the Servant of the People party on ship "Astrakhan", and 12 people (100%) on each of ships "Zvezdnyi" and "Krasnodon". Two voters gave their votes for the Servant of the People party in the 1st City Clinical Hospital (100%), three voters in the Pochaiiv District Municipal Hospital (100%), and 59 voters in Kryvyi Rih Central District Hospital (96.91%).

The Lityn Correctional Colony (Vinnytsia oblast) and the Druzhelyubiv Correctional Centre (#1), which is located in Zaporizhia oblast, have also drawn our attention. Then-effective President Petro Poroshenko received 69% (158 votes) in the first one, and 56% (40 votes) in the second. During the second round in Lityn Correctional Colony, only 97 voters supported Poroshenko (61 votes less than in the first round). Volodymyr Zelensky was supported here by 137 voters (110 votes more compared to the first round). Volodymyr Zelenskyi has won the second round also in Druzheliubivka Correctional Center. Thus,  63 voters supported him (+37 votes). Only 8 voters supported Petro Poroshenko (-32 votes). Besides that, we should draw attention to Mohyliv-Podilskyi Correctional Colony #114. Petro Poroshenko received 101 votes here in the first round, and only 70 in the second round. In the parliamentary elections, pro-presidential party Servant of the People won in all the precincts mentioned above. European Solidarity, whose election list was headed by former President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko, received in average 2-3% of the votes at these polls. At the same time, there is no information about influence on the will of voter at these three polling stations. 

Block 3. Data from single-member districts

Besides parliamentary elections in multi-member constituencies, OPORA considered the voting in majoritarian constituencies. District #99 in the city of Kropyvnytskyi became the first that attracted attention of our observers. Candidate from the Servant of the People party Oleksandr Danutsa had won here with 28,135 votes. The second place was taken by Oleksandr Horbunov from a party list (11,305 votes), who used subventions on social and economic development for campaigning purposes in this district. Konstiantyn Yarynich, who had won here in 2014, took only the 4th place (8,198 votes). The results of Oleksandr Horbunov in this district were also quite interesting. He won in 3 of 110 precincts. It is interesting that two of them were located in prisons. The first one is the Kropyvnytskyi Detention Center, the second one is the Kropyvnytskyi Correctional Colony. In the Kropyvnytskyi Detention Center, Oleksandr Horbunov received 82% (404 votes), Oleksandr Danutsa - almost 9% (43 votes). At the same time, 221 voters supported the party Servant of the People in multi-member constituency. In the Kropyvnytskyi Correctional Colony, Oleksandr Horbunov received a little bit over 41% (181 votes), and Oleksandr Danutsa - almost 26% (115 votes). 236 voters supported the Servant of the People party in multi-member constituency.

Another interesting incident was noticed in district #118 (Lviv oblast). Halyna Vasylchenko from the Holos party won with 28,543 votes. Bohdan Dubnevych, who won the previous election in the district, took the second place with 26,924 votes. The third place went to candidate from the Servant of the People Artem Fedetskyi (11,439 votes). Artem Fedetskyi won in the only prison in district #118. This candidate took the first place only at this precinct. Thus, he received almost 39% (215 votes).