Parliament adopted at first reading the bill banning electoral blocs from using personal names.

The bill, co-authored by Civil Contract MPs Arusyak Julhakyan and Alkhaz Ghazaryan, was adopted with 66 votes in favor and 16 against.

The bill also introduces new grounds for declaring a ballot invalid. According to the proposal, in parliamentary elections and municipal council elections held under the proportional system, a ballot will be considered invalid if the envelope includes any item other than the ballot itself.

Lawmakers also propose that the name of a political party alliance running in the elections must not include personal names, the names of state or local self-government bodies, or any names that could be confusingly similar to them, including variations. In addition, the proposed rules would prohibit alliance names containing offensive or defamatory language.

The draft further stipulates that the chairperson of a district electoral commission must not hold any object while removing the envelope from the ballot box and extracting the ballot paper.

The bill was adopted amid an ongoing protest outside the parliament building by Strong Armenia Party members and supporters, who recently named their electoral bloc “Strong Armenia with Samvel Karapetyan” and intend to run for parliament. They argue that the new law is undemocratic and that such changes should not be made just two months ahead of the polls.

Both opposition parties in parliament, the Hayastan (Armenia) and Pativ Unem (I Have the Honor) blocs, opposed the bill.

MP Julhakyan, in response to the criticism, noted that the Venice Commission recommends against making changes shortly before elections; however, the changes in the bill she co-authored do not pertain to any of the Commission’s recommendations.

According to the Commission, it is not advised to implement modifications in the electoral system, the rules for membership in election commissions, or to alter electoral districts close to the elections. Julhakyan emphasized that the technical change proposed by them does not relate to any of these three areas.