Analysis of Proposed Electoral Law Amendments
On April 21, 2026, proposals to amend four laws entered parliamentary procedure: the Law on the Election of Members of Parliament, the Law on Local Elections, the Law on the Constitutional Court, and the Law on the Election of the President of the Republic. The Law on Prevention of Corruption and the Law on Financing Political Activities were not included in the proposals submitted to Parliament, despite their drafts having been prepared. The process of amending electoral laws was initiated on February 2, 2026, despite the Reform Agenda having stipulated that amendments to five key laws in this area were to be completed by the end of 2025.
The preparation process is accompanied by serious procedural and institutional shortcomings, including a lack of clarity regarding who drafted the initial proposal and the criteria used to formulate it. The proposals were forwarded to an inactive Working Group, whose members from civil society and the opposition had previously withdrawn due to a lack of transparency and procedural violations, repeating the same patterns. Following multiple revisions based on ODIHR opinions, the proposals were formally submitted to parliamentary procedure.
Although the amendments are formally presented as alignment with ODIHR and Council of Europe recommendations, their scope and content indicate a selective approach. Within the four laws under amendment, key provisions relating to the prevention of electoral abuses and electoral engineering remain unchanged. The proposed solutions are largely partial and technical in nature, while recommendations addressing structural problems in the electoral process are to a large extent bypassed.
In this context, three proposed solutions stand out as particularly risky, given the current socio-political context in Serbia. Although these solutions are grounded in comparatively accepted democratic practices, their application under existing institutional conditions may produce the opposite effects – from additional abuses in the electoral process to a further erosion of trust in the judiciary.
First, the removal of the ‘one voter, one declaration of support’ restriction for electoral lists, viewed in the context of long-standing and documented abuses of support declarations in previous electoral cycles, carries a significant risk of further electoral engineering and additional erosion of the integrity of the electoral process. Such an amendment may facilitate the nomination of so-called proxy lists and further encourage manipulative practices. Nevertheless, despite these negative implications in the domestic context, in comparative practice the removal of this restriction is generally regarded as a measure that can contribute to strengthening political pluralism – however, under existing circumstances in Serbia, such a solution can hardly be applied in a manner that would achieve these positive effects.
Second, the proposal allowing a group of citizens to nominate a national minority list opens additional space for manipulation. Given that national minority lists are subject to more favorable conditions for nomination and obtaining mandates (fewer support signatures required and a lower natural threshold), this amendment may lead to an artificial increase in the number of electoral lists and affect the distribution of mandates in a way that does not reflect authentic political representation of minority communities.
Third, the introduction of urgency in proceedings before the Constitutional Court in electoral disputes represents a normatively justified solution. However, its practical effectiveness remains questionable in light of the Court’s longstanding operational problems, including inefficiency and the perception of its institutional bias, particularly given recent changes in the composition of judges.
Additionally, certain solutions that CRTA assessed positively – such as specifying the body to which complaints in the electoral process should be submitted and more clearly defining deadlines for challenging decisions on electoral lists – although envisaged in the initial phase, did not ultimately enter parliamentary procedure.
Overview of proposed amendments
The proposals to amend the Law on the Election of Members of Parliament, the Law on Local Elections, the Law on the Constitutional Court, and the Law on the Election of the President of the Republic entered parliamentary procedure on April 21, 2026. ODIHR issued its opinion on these amendments on two occasions, based on which the proposals were further revised. The proposed amendments in parliamentary procedure relate to the following issues:
- Removal of the ‘one voter, one declaration of support’ restriction for electoral lists
(Relates to ODIHR Recommendation No. 11)
The restriction whereby a voter could previously sign a declaration of support for only one electoral list would be abolished.
- Introduction of mandatory training for members of polling boards and local electoral commissions
(Relates to ODIHR Priority Recommendation No. 2)
Mandatory training is proposed for members of polling boards and local electoral commissions. The certificate issued upon completion of the training is valid for three years, with the possibility of earlier expiry in certain situations.
- Status of national minority electoral lists
(Relates to ODIHR Recommendation No. 20)
The proposal ostensibly tightens the criteria for obtaining the status of a national minority list (it sets conditions regarding the name of the electoral list and the obligation for the political party/coalition to be registered in a special register of national minority parties), but the proposed solution also allows a group of citizens to submit a national minority list (the condition being that the electoral list of the group of citizens includes the name of the national minority whose interests it represents).
- Urgency of proceedings before the Constitutional Court
(Relates to ODIHR Recommendation No. 24)
A three-day deadline would be introduced for electoral administration bodies to submit the required documentation to the Constitutional Court, while the Constitutional Court would have 20 days from receipt of all required documentation to decide on an electoral dispute.
- Removal of grounds for automatic rejection of electoral lists (without the possibility of rectifying deficiencies)
(Relates to ODIHR Recommendation No. 12)
In cases where grounds previously existed for the automatic rejection of an electoral list, the new amendments would introduce a 48-hour deadline to rectify deficiencies.
Although the proposed amendments aim to address certain ODIHR recommendations (Nos. 2, 11, 12, 20, and 24), and some of them are partially or fully aligned with CRTA’s recommendations, they are predominantly technical, that is, “cosmetic”, in nature.
The proposed amendments do not address the key structural problems of the electoral process in Serbia, which CRTA has identified on the basis of findings from its observation missions conducted at all electoral levels. These findings point, among other things, to the existence of proxy electoral lists, the forgery of voter signatures, an insufficient level of professionalism in the electoral administration, and the ineffective protection of voting rights.
Proposals
I Removal of the ‘one voter, one declaration of support’ restriction for electoral lists
| PROPOSED SOLUTION:
The proposed solution relates to ODIHR Recommendation No. 11 and stipulates that a voter may provide declarations of support for multiple electoral lists. An additional obligation has been introduced for the Republican Electoral Commission (REC) to file a criminal complaint with the competent public prosecutor’s office if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that personal data was misused during the collection of voter support signatures. |
ODIHR OPINION:
The recommendation is fulfilled, but it was also recommended that the provisions of the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure need to be improved to enable more efficient and effective investigation and prosecution of those responsible for forging signatures.
CRTA’S RECOMMENDATION:
CRTA considers that the proposed legislative amendment should be removed.
REASONING:
Although this legislative amendment formally invokes ODIHR recommendations, in practice it creates an institutional framework for electoral engineering. It enables the proclamation of a large number of effectively fictitious electoral lists that do not contribute to political pluralism, but serve exclusively to secure a majority for one political party in electoral commissions and other bodies responsible for conducting elections, in order to outvote other members when making decisions.
In this way, the electoral process is influenced through the instrumentalization and proliferation of electoral lists, whereby decisive control over the electoral administration is achieved through the technical process of collecting support signatures. This solution is particularly concerning in light of previously identified and documented irregularities, including the systematic abuse and forgery of voter support declarations in order to gain control over electoral commissions. For example, there were reasonable grounds to suspect signature forgery on seven electoral lists in the 2023 Belgrade elections. Similarly, during the local elections held on March 29, 2026, at least one list suspected of being fictitious was identified in each of 10 local self-government units, amounting to a total of 19 such lists, based on established indicators for assessing the authenticity of electoral lists.
These lists were not nominated for the purpose of genuine political participation, but primarily to secure majorities in electoral commissions and polling boards, and to confuse voters with list names that imitate the names of real (mostly opposition) political actors, creating the illusion of political pluralism. Despite the long-standing presence of these practices, to date no one has been held accountable – there are no judicial outcomes to initiated proceedings.
Therefore, for this solution to produce exclusively positive effects (strengthening pluralism and freedom of association) rather than negative ones, it would first be necessary to establish efficient and timely action by the prosecution and courts in all proceedings related to elections in order to break the culture of impunity, then to carry out a reform of the electoral administration, particularly regarding the manner of appointing members and deputies in the expanded composition of electoral commissions. Since resolving these issues at this specific moment is not in sight, CRTA considers that this is not an appropriate time to introduce such a solution into the legal framework.
Other CRTA recommendations regarding voter support declarations:
- Stipulate that voter support declarations may be certified exclusively by notaries public; exceptionally, in municipalities where no notaries have been appointed, certification should be possible before basic courts or municipal administrations.
- Enable voters to quickly and efficiently verify whether they have signed a declaration of support and for which electoral list.
- Provide that the order of electoral lists on the ballot is determined by drawing of lots, following the solution prescribed by the Law on the Election of the President of the Republic.
II Training of members of local electoral commissions and polling boards
| PROPOSED SOLUTION:
The proposal, which relates to ODIHR Recommendation No. 2, introduces the competence of the Republican Electoral Commission (REC) to conduct training and issue certificates valid for three years, with exceptions in the event of a final conviction for criminal offenses against electoral rights or the annulment of voting at a polling station, when the certificate ceases to be valid earlier. A register of persons with valid certificates is established, as well as an obligation for authorized nominators to appoint only certified individuals to electoral bodies, while the REC is responsible for organizing training with the support of local electoral commissions. A provision on the prohibition of discrimination on any grounds has also been introduced. The provisions relating to the acquisition of a certificate confirming completion of training for presidents, secretaries of local electoral commissions, and their deputies will apply as follows:
For other members of local electoral commissions and members of polling boards, the law will apply from January 1, 2028. |
ODIHR OPINION:
The further shortening of the transitional period for the application of provisions on holding a certificate (“training confirmation”), which the ODIHR requested in its opinion, has not been amended.
CRTA’S RECOMMENDATION:
Stipulate that authorized nominators are obliged to propose to local electoral commissions (LEC) and polling boards (PB) individuals who have completed training and passed the examination to obtain a license to work in the electoral administration.
REASONING:
The proposed amendments represent a step forward in the professionalization of the middle and lowest levels of the electoral administration; however, the envisaged solutions are insufficient. Specifically, the amendments do not require the passing of a licensing examination, but only attendance at training. The introduction of a mandatory examination (in line with CRTA’s recommendation) would ensure the substantive achievement of the goal of these amendments – strengthening the professional capacity of the electoral administration. The introduction of mandatory training cannot in any way jeopardize the presence of any political option at the polling station, since all citizens will be able to attend this training. A positive aspect is that the proposed amendments introduce an obligation for authorized nominators to propose individuals who hold a certificate of completed training.
Concern remains, however, regarding the capacity of the Republican Electoral Commission to carry out such activities, given that Serbia does not have a professional electoral administration. The question of additional training during the 3-year period for which the license is valid is also raised. This is particularly important given the dynamic nature of changes to electoral legislation in Serbia.
Other CRTA recommendations aimed at professionalizing and strengthening the role of the electoral administration:
- Professionalize all levels of the electoral administration.
- Establish an independent professional service of the Republican Electoral Commission.
- Expand the competences of the electoral administration in the electoral process.
- Change the model for selecting members of electoral administration bodies, both in permanent and expanded composition.
III Status of national minority electoral lists
| PROPOSED SOLUTION:
The proposed solution partially tightens the criteria for obtaining the status of a national minority electoral list. The amendments provide that the submitter of a national minority electoral list may be political parties registered in a special register as national minority political parties, a coalition of such parties, and groups of citizens. The proposal additionally stipulates that the name of the national minority electoral list must clearly indicate the minority it represents: lists submitted by groups of citizens must contain the name of that minority, while lists of political parties and coalitions must include in their name either the name of the party or parties, or the name of the minority. In addition, denial of national minority status is provided for if the candidate or list holder is publicly recognized as an active member of another political party that is not a national minority party. These provisions relate to ODIHR Recommendation No. 20. |
ODIHR OPINION:
/
CRTA’S RECOMMENDATION:
Prescribe an obligation for the electoral commission to request an opinion from the competent national minority council as to whether a particular electoral list may hold the status of a national minority list. Such an opinion would not be binding, but would ensure equal treatment of all electoral lists and potentially prevent circumvention of the law.
REASONING:
Stipulating that the REC shall refuse to grant national minority electoral list status to a list on which any candidate is publicly recognized as an active member of a political party that is not a national minority party achieves the intended goal. However, the question of interpreting the standard of “active member” arises, as this is a standard that may be interpreted in different ways.
Concern remains as to how administrative court judges and higher court judges will treat such legal norms, given the existing decision-making practice – all parties registered in the register of national minority parties are entitled to the status of a national minority party in the electoral process (regardless of the conditions prescribed by the Law on the Election of Members of Parliament). Additionally, by providing for the possibility of groups of citizens nominating a national minority electoral list, additional space is opened for abuse during the nomination phase, in the work of electoral commissions, and in the distribution of mandates following the elections.
IV Removal of grounds for rejecting electoral lists
| PROPOSED SOLUTION:
The proposed solution effectively abolishes the grounds for (automatic) rejection of electoral lists and enables submitters to rectify deficiencies within 48 hours. This addresses ODIHR Recommendation No. 12. |
CRTA’S RECOMMENDATION:
CRTA proposed this solution.
REASONING:
CRTA considers that these amendments may have positive effects, encouraging pluralism in the electoral process. The amendment is in line with the recommendation that CRTA advocated for following the elections held in December 2023. In practical terms, submitters of electoral lists are granted the right to rectify formal and technical deficiencies identified by the commission. Such a solution may be of particular importance in local communities, where groups of citizens who lack legal support and are prone to such errors also participate in elections. Finally, it should also be noted that CRTA observed that local electoral commissions had a practice of so-called “fishing” for electoral lists – seeking formal deficiencies in documentation (covered by the article deleted from the proposal) in order to potentially prevent those electoral lists from participating in local elections.
V Urgency of proceedings before the Constitutional Court
| PROPOSED SOLUTION:
The proposed solution establishes urgency of proceedings before the Constitutional Court in electoral disputes (a three-day deadline for electoral administration bodies to submit the required documentation and a twenty-day deadline for the repetition of the entire electoral procedure or part thereof), thereby addressing ODIHR Recommendation No. 24. Additionally, the deadline for repeating elections has been extended from ten to thirty days from the date of delivery of the Constitutional Court’s decision to the competent electoral administration body. |
ODIHR OPINION:
/
CRTA’S COMMENT:
CRTA considers that, although the proposed solution represents the fulfillment of its recommendation, under current circumstances it cannot produce positive effects, given the Court’s longstanding inefficiency and the perception of close ties between certain judges and the ruling party. Additionally, no specific deadline has been defined for the Court’s action in the urgent procedure for resolving electoral disputes, which renders this solution incomplete. In the current socio-political environment, the application of such a change – although normatively justified – may lead to a further erosion of citizens’ trust in the judiciary.
