Complaints of coercion, pre-marked ballot papers and interference with voters have exposed serious weaknesses in Russia’s election process.
Altai Krai has emerged as the Russian region with the largest number of public complaints alleging pressure on voters during the elections to the State Duma and regional legislatures on 20 September 2026. The complaints include coercion to use remote electronic voting and to support the ruling United Russia party, according to reports published by the Telegram channels Fedot Tumusov, Siberian Express and Vybory.
In Altai, police and election officials have taken note of complaints from Communist party representatives about alleged falsifications and the exclusion of their public observers from polling stations. But reports by the pro-government channels Incident Barnaul and overheard Barnaul said the authorities were examining the Communist party’s own conduct, rather than investigating the alleged violations themselves.
Anton Artsybashev, a Communist member of the regional legislature, said party representatives had complied fully with the law and that neither law enforcement officers nor the election commission had raised objections when the complaints were submitted. The competing accounts underline the central dispute: whether complaints are being treated as evidence of electoral abuses or as grounds for scrutinising those who reported them.
Pre-marked ballots found in circulation
The reports point to similar incidents far beyond Altai Krai. At polling station No 62 in Syktyvkar, the capital of the Komi Republic, at least 48 ballot papers were found with marks already placed in favour of United Russia. At least one of those completed papers was issued to a voter before the problem was identified. The ballots were seized as evidence.
The incident illustrates how weaknesses in procedural controls can bring pre-filled or allegedly “stuffed” ballot papers into the official voting process. In this case, a ballot prepared in advance was not merely discovered inside the polling station: it had reached the stage at which it could be handed to a voter.
In Novosibirsk region, further signs of large-scale manipulation were reported. At polling station No 842 in the village of Tolmachyovo, an unusually high number of people voted at home. Roman Yakovlev, a Communist candidate for the State Duma and current deputy speaker of the regional legislature, said the figure indicated a critical level of violations.
Other polling stations in the region reportedly recorded incorrect numbers of voters in documents used when ballot papers were sealed in security bags. Home voting is subject to weaker observation than voting inside a polling station, making it a particularly vulnerable part of the process when officials or others seek to influence how ballots are completed.
Pressure on voters and broken safeguards
In the Republic of Sakha, State Duma deputy Fedot Tumusov of A Just Russia said an observer from his party had reported direct interference by staff at a residential institution in the settlement of Lensky in Aldan district. The polling commission did not ensure voting secrecy because the room had no screens or partitions.
According to the report, staff told elderly residents whom to support and, in some cases, filled in ballot papers on their behalf. Residents were allegedly given an incomplete list of candidates and some names were deliberately distorted. Nurses openly campaigned for United Russia, promising voters free massages.
In Yakutsk, the capital of Sakha, election commission members at polling stations No 756 and No 738 were accused of opening security bags containing ballot papers. At station No 741, all home-voting results were annulled after a public observer filmed people voting on behalf of voters.
Opening sealed bags undermines the safeguards intended to protect ballots during Russia’s multi-day voting system. The annulment in Yakutsk shows that breaches of voting secrecy can produce a formal consequence, but it also demonstrates how much depends on observers being present and able to record what happens.
Communist candidate faced attempted removal
The complaints came against a wider backdrop of pressure on the Communist party in Altai. Maria Prusakova, the region’s Communist leader and a State Duma deputy, was threatened with removal from the election after the legal deadlines for such a move had expired.
Irina Akimova, chair of the Altai regional election commission, wrote to Prusakova claiming that a report on her current work published on social media had breached election rules and amounted to campaigning. Prusakova responded that federal television channels broadcast daily reports about the work of officials who were also candidates for the State Duma, yet those reports had apparently raised no questions with members of the Altai election commission.
Taken together, the cases describe an electoral system in which the most vulnerable procedures—remote and home voting, ballot storage and voting by residents of institutions—are also those most exposed to pressure or weak oversight. The immediate unresolved issue is whether the authorities will investigate the reported violations and those responsible for them, rather than concentrating on the parties and observers who brought them to light.
Should Russia’s election authorities prioritise independent investigations into reported polling violations or tighter controls on the parties and observers raising complaints?
