By Hayk Ghazaryan
For Byurakn Ishkhanyan, an Armenian writer and data scientist living in Denmark, holding an Armenian passport should mean retaining a say in how her country is governed. But a law adopted in July bars citizens who do not meet a new residence requirement from voting.
“I am a citizen of the Republic of Armenia. My right to vote is enshrined in the Constitution, and where I live does not matter,” Ishkhanyan told CivilNet. “I have a legal connection to Armenia and therefore should have the right to participate in democratic processes.”
He is among Armenian citizens abroad campaigning against restrictions they say were rushed through parliament without meaningful consultation with those affected.
The amendments to the Electoral Code and the law on referenda require citizens to have spent at least 366 days in Armenia during a specified two-year period to qualify to vote. Those days do not have to be consecutive. Exceptions cover certain absences related to public service, diplomatic postings and university studies abroad.
The restrictions also apply to citizens who return to Armenia to cast their ballots, rather than simply limiting voting from abroad.
Some of those affected have formed an initiative called My Vote, publishing video appeals demanding that their voting rights be restored. Opposition lawmakers have separately asked the Constitutional Court to declare the amendments unconstitutional.
The government has defended the restrictions as protection against voting directed from abroad. Supporters also argue that people living in Armenia should decide who governs the country because they bear the consequences of those decisions.
Alkhas Ghazaryan, a lawmaker from the ruling Civil Contract party and a co-author of the legislation, said residents are better placed to hold the authorities accountable.
“It was unfair when people came from abroad, voted on the basis of being Armenian citizens, then returned to another country,” Ghazaryan told CivilNet.
Before the June parliamentary election, reports circulated that about 100,000 Armenian citizens would travel from Russia to vote under outside direction. An Infocom analysis of border-crossing data did not substantiate arrivals on that scale. The data, however, could not establish travelers’ motives or fully identify dual citizens entering with Russian passports.
A dispute over constitutional rights
For opponents of the law, the central question is whether parliament can make a citizen’s voting rights conditional on residence.
Yekaterina Tairyan, a lecturer and health specialist living in Canada, points to Article 48 of Armenia’s Constitution. She argues that the provision sets out restrictions on voting rights but contains no exclusion based on where a citizen lives.
“As you can see, there is nothing in that article about place of residence,” she told CivilNet.
Human rights advocate Anna Melikyan also said the constitutional provision does not require residence. She described the new rule as a substantial restriction that should have undergone broader discussion.
The pace of adoption has become another point of contention. The proposal was publicly raised in June and passed by the outgoing parliament in early July.
“It happened at lightning speed,” Ishkhanyan said.
Tairyan said there had been no discussions with citizens living abroad or nongovernmental organizations. Ghazaryan disputed that account, saying there had been public discussions, meetings with nongovernmental organizations and a televised debate.
Ghazaryan said she saw no constitutional conflict but would await the court’s assessment. Lawmakers could propose further amendments if problems emerged, she added.
The authors did not seek a specific opinion on the legislation from the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission. Ghazaryan said they had taken its broader recommendations into account.
Questions also remain about how the exceptions will operate. Citizens receiving medical treatment abroad were not listed as a separate exempt category in the amendments, according to the report. Ghazaryan said they could nevertheless submit documents explaining their absence and restore their voting eligibility.
“If it is substantiated that the person left for health reasons, there is no problem,” she said.
The restrictions have also raised questions about the relationship between citizenship rights and obligations. Melikyan noted that a citizen liable for military service may still be required to serve upon returning to Armenia after years abroad, even while facing restrictions on voting.
“If you demand the obligation, then you should not restrict the corresponding rights,” she said.
Ghazaryan rejected linking military service to voting eligibility, saying service fulfills a duty to the homeland. She also argued that time spent serving in Armenia would allow citizens to meet the residence requirement.
For those campaigning against the law, the dispute extends to their relationship with Armenia. Tairyan said she viewed the restrictions as an attempt to silence independently minded citizens abroad who were not financially dependent on the government and did not fear reprisals.
Ghazaryan denied that the law weakened ties with the diaspora, arguing that the state should encourage Armenians to return and strengthen those connections.
For Ishkhanyan, citizenship itself should secure her participation in Armenia’s democratic life. Whether the additional residence requirement is constitutional is now before the Constitutional Court.
Stories
