Georgia’s Constitutional Court Dismisses Election Lawsuit, Upholds Electoral Procedures

The Constitutional Court of Georgia has ruled against a lawsuit challenging electoral procedures, concluding that the complaints lacked sufficient grounds. The decision, delivered on December 3 after the court’s plenary session on November 28-29, is final and not subject to appeal or review.

The plaintiff had raised concerns regarding the secrecy of the vote in the 2024 parliamentary elections. The court, however, found no evidence that any of the disputed norms violated the principle of secrecy. Specifically, the court stated that no provision in the electoral process allowed for a breach of vote confidentiality, such as marking ballots in a manner visible from both sides after casting the vote.

The plaintiff argued that the voting process, including the selection of ballots and markers at polling stations, made the markings visible after voters filled out their ballots. The lawsuit claimed that the visibility of the marks compromised voter privacy, as the choice could be identified by individuals standing near the ballot box. However, the court ruled that the complaint was directed not at the constitutional norms themselves, but at the actions of the election administration regarding ballot and marker selection.

In a detailed explanation, the court emphasized that for a constitutional challenge to succeed, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the alleged issue is directly linked to the contested laws and not to the conduct of the election authorities. The court rejected the argument that the electoral procedures, as defined by the disputed norms, inherently violated the secrecy of the vote.

Regarding the plaintiff’s second argument about the accessibility of polling stations for Georgian citizens living abroad, the court ruled that the lack of polling stations near expatriates' places of residence did not amount to a violation of electoral rights. It noted that participation in elections requires citizens to meet certain conditions, such as presenting valid identification and appearing at designated polling locations.

The court further explained that although the state could not open polling stations in every location abroad, it had provided sufficient resources to organize voting in areas with a significant Georgian population. The plaintiff’s claim of discrimination was dismissed as unreasonable, with the court pointing out the logistical challenges of replicating domestic election accessibility for citizens abroad, especially in countries far larger than Georgia.

The ruling, which was issued by members of the court’s plenary, was accompanied by a dissenting opinion from two judges, Giorgi Kverenchkhiladze and Teimuraz Tugushi.

This decision concludes of legal debate surrounding the 2024 parliamentary election procedures and sets a significant precedent for future constitutional challenges in Georgia's electoral