By Tatevik Ghazaryan
#DemocracyWatch – From July 1 to 3, the National Assembly of Armenia, in what was effectively a 24-hour legislative process conducted over two readings and without prior public consultations, adopted amendments to the Electoral Code and the Law on Referendums, making the right to vote conditional on a period of actual residence in Armenia.
Under the adopted amendments, Armenian citizenship and having reached the age of 18 are no longer sufficient conditions for participating in parliamentary elections, local self-government elections, or referendums. The law introduces a third requirement—a residency qualification. Citizens will now be eligible to vote only if they have been physically present in Armenia for at least 366 days during the 730 days preceding the vote. Exceptions are made only for public servants who are abroad on official duty and students enrolled in higher education institutions abroad.
In other words, the law makes prolonged absence from the country—whether due to labor migration, education, family circumstances, or permanent residence abroad—a de facto ground for disenfranchisement. The “Independent Observer” Alliance has expressed concern over this provision, noting that the new rules are expected to be applied already to the local self-government elections scheduled for autumn 2026. This means the law has retroactive consequences for individuals who made employment, educational, or other life decisions over the past two years without knowing that these choices could ultimately deprive them of their voting rights.
The flawed legislative process
Particular attention should also be paid to the procedure by which these amendments were adopted, as it in itself constitutes a compelling argument against them, regardless of their substantive content. The draft law was introduced on June 12, 2026, and, as documented by election observation and human rights organizations, was never subjected to public consultation. Instead, it was immediately included on the agenda of the National Assembly’s late June/early July session and passed in two readings almost without delay, within just a few days and without discussions involving interested stakeholders. This is particularly significant because the amendments concern not a technical regulatory issue but a fundamental political right enshrined in the Constitution. Proper legislative practice requires especially broad and sustained public participation when amending such rights. In this regard, the “Akanates” (“Eyewitness”) Observation Mission emphasized in its statement that regulations of this nature should be the subject of broad professional and public debate.
It is especially important to note that the principal justification offered by the authors of the bill was the alleged organized transportation and coordination of voters from abroad during the June 7 elections. However, this claim is not supported by the available official data. Infocom submitted written inquiries to the National Security Service requesting information on the number of people who arrived in Armenia from Russia during the period from May 1 to June 7 over the past five years, asking that the figures be broken down by Armenian citizens, Russian citizens, and dual citizens. According to the official data provided by the National Security Service, the number of Armenian citizens arriving between May 1 and June 7, 2026 exceeded the figure for the same period of the previous year by only 3,358. These figures suggest that claims regarding the number of citizens who allegedly participated in the elections under foreign coordination have been significantly exaggerated.
Why the law is unconstitutional
Article 48 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia establishes only two requirements for the right to vote: Armenian citizenship and having reached the age of 18. The same article exhaustively lists the circumstances under which a citizen may be deprived of the right to vote.
In its opinion on the draft law, the Legal Department of the National Assembly stated that while the legislature is empowered to regulate the procedure for exercising electoral rights, it is not authorized to introduce an additional qualification that falls outside the exhaustive list of exceptions provided by the Constitution. Moreover, regardless of whether a citizen resides temporarily in Armenia or abroad, that citizen continues to bear constitutional obligations and enjoy the protection of the state. Citizenship itself therefore constitutes the legal bond from which the right to vote arises, and introducing an additional requirement of a “sufficient degree of connection” effectively revises the very essence of the institution of citizenship.
The Expert Department of the National Assembly likewise concluded that the explanatory note accompanying the draft fails to explain why exactly 183 days (later changed to 366 days) should be regarded as evidence of a “sufficient connection” between the citizen and the state, rather than any shorter period. Without such justification, it is impossible even to assess whether the restriction is suitable, necessary, and proportionate, or simply arbitrary.
The illogical nature of the restriction becomes evident when comparing the residency requirements for voting and for standing as a candidate. Under Article 65 of the Constitution and the Electoral Code, parliamentary candidates are subject to a residency requirement. To qualify as a candidate for the National Assembly, it is sufficient to have spent only half of the preceding four-year period in Armenia. Under the new amendments, however, voters must have been physically present in Armenia for at least one year (366 days) during the preceding two years.
Thus, the observation period applied to voters is twice as short as that applied to candidates, which in practice creates a stricter and less flexible threshold for voters. This results in a logical contradiction: citizens may be eligible to stand as candidates for the National Assembly while simultaneously being unable to participate in the election in which they are running.
A second example concerns young people subject to mandatory military service. A young Armenian citizen living abroad may return to Armenia shortly before or immediately after turning 18 and become subject to mandatory conscription, thereby fulfilling one of the most fundamental constitutional obligations. However, because that individual has not spent 366 days in Armenia during the preceding two years, he would nevertheless be deprived of the right to vote. In other words, the state requires the citizen’s maximum commitment to national defense while simultaneously denying that citizen the most basic civic right—the right to vote. This directly contradicts the logic underlying the modern democratic state: those who bear the heaviest obligations toward the state should also enjoy the fullest right to participate in its governance.
The adopted amendments also contradict international norms and standards concerning electoral rights. In its opinion of June 24, the Department of Constitutional and Legal Expertise of the National Assembly’s Expert and Analytical Directorate cited the position of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), which holds that, in conditions of increasing human mobility, member states should facilitate rather than restrict the exercise of electoral rights by their citizens residing abroad.
The Venice Commission’s Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters takes an even stricter approach to such changes, recommending that actual residence requirements be applied only to local or regional elections, but not to nationwide elections or referendums.
The right to vote is enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia as an unconditional political right linked exclusively to citizenship and age. The amendments adopted in early July introduce an additional residency requirement that is not envisaged by the Constitution and substantially restrict electoral rights, directly contradicting the constitutional principles of democratic governance and universal suffrage.
This arbitrarily implemented amendment is yet another example of how the ruling party changes the rules of the game based on its own political preferences and without broad public consensus. Such an approach contributes both to the erosion of institutions and to declining public trust in them, creating serious challenges for Armenia’s democratic development.
Democracy Watch is a joint initiative of CivilNet and the Regional Center for Democracy and Security.