Martial Law: Elections Cancelled?

Elections are a cornerstone of democracy, but they can be complicated to organize and hold during emergencies such as wars, natural disasters, or pandemics. Wartime elections are vulnerable to foreign interference, propaganda, and cyber threats, and they may lack inclusivity, transparency, and impartiality, leading to contested results and further instability. Several countries, including the United Kingdom, France, and Israel, have postponed elections during times of war or emergency. In the context of Ukraine's war with Russia, Ukraine's constitution prohibits holding national elections during martial law, and logistical challenges and security concerns further complicate the possibility of holding elections during the ongoing conflict.

Ukraine's constitution prohibits holding elections during martial law

Ukraine's constitution, along with its martial law legislation, prohibits holding elections during martial law. Article 83 of the Ukrainian Constitution states that if the term of the Verkhovna Rada (the Ukrainian parliament) expires under martial law, it shall be extended until a new Rada is seated following the end of martial law. This ensures governance continuity despite suspended elections.

Article 19 of Ukraine's martial law legislation specifically forbids conducting national elections. Olha Aivazovska, Head of the Board of the Civil Network OPORA, interprets Article 83 of the Constitution to mean that "the powers of the parliament, which operates during martial law, cannot be terminated. Accordingly, there can be no elections if the legislative branch's powers cannot be suspended during martial law."

Additionally, Article 157 of the Constitution makes it impossible to adopt changes to Ukraine's primary law during martial law, further complicating the process of holding elections during this time. Furthermore, Ukrainian legislation prohibits the termination of the powers of state authorities, including the President, the Verkhovna Rada, the Cabinet of Ministers, and the National Bank, under martial law.

The war with Russia has forced Ukraine to navigate a delicate balance between maintaining democratic governance and ensuring national survival while operating under martial law. While there have been debates about the legitimacy of wartime governance, particularly with the expiration of presidential and parliamentary terms, Ukraine's leadership remains fully legitimate under constitutional law and international recognition.

Even if Ukraine's constitution allowed elections during martial law, practical and security issues would render it impossible to ensure a fair electoral process. Ukraine is facing a full-scale invasion and occupation, with constant threats of Russian bombs and many of its people displaced. The daily bombardment of civilian infrastructure and the occupation of Ukrainian territory make it impractical to ensure that every Ukrainian has an equal opportunity to vote. Harder-hit areas may not be able to hold elections directly after martial law ends due to safety issues, access to polling locations, and disruptions to key electoral resources.

Security, financial, and legal factors complicate election organization

Ukraine's commitment to democracy is a key part of its attempts to join international institutions such as the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). However, the country's martial law, which was instituted after the escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War in 2022, presents a dilemma for the Ukrainian people.

Ukrainian legislation directly prohibits holding elections under martial law. Even if it did allow them, there would be many security issues that would make it impossible to ensure a fair electoral process during a total war. As of February 2023, almost 18% of Ukraine’s territory was under temporary Russian occupation, and millions of citizens had been forced to flee abroad. In addition, Russia continues to bombard civilian infrastructure across Ukraine, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are defending the country at the front lines.

The financial aspect is another significant consideration. In 2019, about UAH 2 billion was spent from the state budget for the parliamentary elections, and UAH 2.3 billion for the presidential elections. Holding elections during the war would reduce spending on areas critical to preserving Ukraine as a state, such as the army and defense. Ukraine’s budget is currently intended to meet the priority needs of Ukraine and its citizens who suffer from Russia’s crimes, including those who have lost their homes or been injured, as well as orphaned children, who need social assistance.

Another legal factor is that Ukrainian legislation prohibits the termination of the powers of state authorities (including the President, the Verkhovna Rada, the Cabinet of Ministers, and the National Bank) under martial law.

Wartime elections are vulnerable to foreign interference and propaganda

Elections are a pillar of democracy, but they must be conducted under conditions that allow for meaningful participation, competition, and security. Historically, conducting elections during wartime has been rare and complex. Countries like the United States have held elections during wartime, but these conflicts occurred outside their territory.

Most nations have chosen to postpone elections until conditions allow for a free, fair, and secure electoral process. Security risks, voter displacement, limited access to polling stations, and the inability to guarantee democratic standards pose significant challenges. Wartime elections are particularly vulnerable to foreign interference, propaganda, and cyber threats. Foreign actors may use cyber tools to collect information, spread disinformation, or compromise political entities, undermining public trust in the electoral process.

For example, during the 2024 U.S. election cycle, all key foreign adversaries were found to have engaged in information operations and propaganda campaigns to shape voter preferences or undermine confidence in the election. Similarly, during the 2024 U.S. election, two Russian nationals were indicted for setting up a conservative media outlet to spread pro-Kremlin propaganda.

To protect the integrity of elections, it is crucial to address these vulnerabilities and safeguard against foreign interference and propaganda campaigns. Ensuring a secure and fair election environment reinforces democratic principles and supports the legitimacy of the electoral process.

Polling stations may become targets for attacks

The vulnerability of polling stations to attack is increased by the fact that they are often located in easily accessible buildings such as churches, schools, and community centers. These locations may be conducting regular activities during polling, mixing facility users with the voting public and creating additional traffic and congestion. This congestion can be a serious issue in areas with pedestrians, especially the elderly and children, and it is important to create and maintain safe walkways and control crowd movement.

The FBI has reported bomb threats to polling locations in several states, although none have been found to be credible. Furthermore, the federal government has warned that absentee ballot drop boxes could be targeted with incendiary and explosive materials. Election officials have taken extraordinary measures to prepare for and prevent such attacks, and remain on high alert. For example, in Chicago, a "preparedness plan" was implemented, including extra law enforcement and heavy trucks to serve as barricades.

To mitigate the risk of violence, some states have prohibited firearms at election sites, and this has been supported by the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, even among gun owners. Local election officials have also increased their security plans, with 92% of surveyed officials stating they had taken steps to increase security for voters and election workers. These measures aim to ensure the safety of voters, staff, and election workers while protecting the integrity of the election process.

Historical precedents exist for postponing elections during war

Historical precedents exist for postponing elections during times of war. For example, during World War II, the UK postponed its scheduled 1940 general elections, maintaining a wartime coalition government. A general election was only held in 1945, after military victory was secured and democratic norms could be restored. Similarly, France also postponed its elections during World War II due to German occupation and the collapse of its democratic government.

Israel has a history of postponing elections due to wartime hostilities, prioritizing security and stability before proceeding with democratic processes. The country's first parliamentary elections, originally scheduled for October 1948, were postponed due to the Arab-Israeli War and were eventually held in January 1949 after the immediate threat had passed. More recently, in 2023, local elections were postponed twice in response to a Hamas attack and the ensuing military operations.

The United States has conducted elections during wartime, including during the War of 1812, the Civil War, and both World Wars. However, these conflicts did not occur on American soil and did not lead to the imposition of martial law. During the Civil War in 1864, President Lincoln was re-elected, and no presidential election has been postponed since.

While some countries have managed to hold elections during active conflicts, most have chosen to postpone elections until conditions allow for a free, fair, and secure electoral process. Security risks, displacement of voters, limited access to polling stations, and challenges in meeting democratic standards can make holding elections during wartime difficult. Postponing elections until conditions are stable ensures a commitment to electoral integrity and legitimacy.

Frequently asked questions