?
Конституционно-процессуальная ответственность в избирательном праве - призрачная сущность в материально-правовой оболочке
Upon publication in 2021 of a critical article of authors discrediting some unsuccessful attempts at justifying the existence of the constitutional procedural liability in the Russian law (Constitutional and Municipal Law, 2021, No. 5), the scientific interest in this "phenomenon" has faded considerably. Nevertheless, some of its recollections sometimes still appear in popular scientific works dedicated to electoral laws. The groundless mix between the concepts of the constitutional law liability and the constitutional procedural liability is facilitated by dichotomy of the concepts of electoral law and electoral procedure. Lack of understanding of the correct correlation between them often results in superficial assignment of the "procedural" label to truly substantive institutions. Since the predominant part of provisions of electoral law is dedicated to the electoral procedure, there appears an illusion that the law itself becomes procedural. However, this point of view is groundless in the majority of cases. For example, violation of requirements for pre-election campaigning can result in cancellation of the candidate’s registration. A violation of "procedural" requirements is what lies on the surface, but in fact, what happens is a denial of exercising the right to be elected, i.e., pure constitutional law liability. This article is a continuation of the scientific discussion started in 2021 by presentation of a consecutive series of additional arguments not published earlier that confirm that the existing constitutional law liability institutions have no "new" attributes to make it possible to call them "constitutional procedural" forms. The study is based on the newest judicial practice of review of electoral disputes by courts that shows the real essence of the constitutional liability and its procedural aspects.