According to the Guarantee Authority, the Constitutional Court has unanimously rejected the PSOE’s alleged count of zero votes in Madrid. With this motion, the Socialists wanted to regain a seat that they see as crucial for the close vote on the inauguration of Pedro Sánchez. The reason for the refusal is that the court considers that there is no general right to request this type of recount without giving specific reasons and only to verify that the operation was carried out without errors at the time, especially if none there is sufficient evidence. reasonable suspicion that the end result could be different. In this sense, the Constitutional Court emphasizes that the “immediacy” of knowledge of the vote count “represents a good legal thing that must be protected”. The decision was adopted by the Second Chamber, which consists of four progressive judges and two conservative judges.
The speaker, Judge Laura Díez, has spoken out in favor of rejecting the Socialists’ appeal, as has the prosecutor’s office of the Constitutional Court. In both cases, they argued that there must be concrete reasons for demanding a new recount of the annulled votes, otherwise there would most likely be calls and repetitions to verify the election results without the political forces having done so beforehand – justified the existence of specific irregularities.
The Constitutional Court has now clarified its doctrine on requests for recounts of elections and stated in its ruling that “anyone who pushes for the verification of the zero votes contained (…) must base their request on reporting irregularities in the electoral process.” This Court adds: “Although in these cases it does not make sense to require full proof of the alleged irregularities (…), at least evidence must be adduced.”
Therefore, for possible claims in the future, the Constitutional Court makes it clear that the “review or control of the file of the electoral process” “depends on the condition” that the applicant “meets this minimum burden of assertion”. The ruling emphasizes that “the isolated fact that the count shows a small difference between the two candidates in the race for the final seat in a constituency cannot, without further consideration, be regarded as a valid reason to require verification of the zero votes ..” unless evidence of irregularities is alleged that calls into question the proper observance of the guarantees inherent in the electoral process.”
The Socialists had requested the audit of the 30,302 invalid votes registered in the province of Madrid, since the difference between the result of the PSOE and that of the PP in the dispute for the last seat was very small, with 1,323 votes. The Supreme Court had already rejected this claim, saying that this narrow margin was not a “sufficient basis for review.” With this resolution, the Guarantee Authority expands its limited doctrine on this type of conflict in the sense that it requires that requests for new counts must be based on a solid basis for believing that errors have occurred and not only cater to small-scale interests may Number of votes that one or the other candidate received.
The Constitutional Court discussed the situation this Tuesday. The decision on the PSOE’s appeal rests with the Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court, which consists of two conservative judges – César Tolosa and Enrique Arnaldo – and four progressive judges – Ramón Sáez, María Luisa Balaguer, Laura Díez and President Inmaculada Montalbán.
What influences the most is what happens next. So you don’t miss anything, subscribe.
Subscribe to
The arguments of the guarantee body
The Constitutional Court is of the opinion that there is no “unconditional right” to demand a review of the counting of invalid votes in an election and that for this it is essential to “at least indicate the existence of an irregularity in the electoral process”. .” With these words, the Guarantee Authority explains the reasons why it unanimously rejected the request submitted by the PSOE for the recount of the annulled votes in the 23 J elections in Madrid, a request based on the possibility of recovering a seat in this constituency, where no concrete reasons have so far been put forward that would question the accuracy of the count.
The PSOE’s lawsuit initially sparked a debate before the Constitutional Court. The speaker, Judge Díez, had two conflicting reports from the court’s lawyers. One of them supported allowing the appeal to be heard because it was considered that the case had “particular constitutional significance” and “goes beyond the specific case in raising a legal question of relevant and general social or economic impact.” The other side, on the other hand, was of the opinion that the appeal should be rejected in its entirety because the court had made it clear in a 2015 ruling that there must be concrete reasons for obtaining a new count.
The first debate on admission to the trial – after the Supreme Court prosecutor supported the PSOE’s claim to “remove every trace of reasonable doubt as to the true and precise will of the electoral body” – ended with four votes to two in favor of the trial challenge. The progressive part of the Guarantee Panel considered that the doctrine of the previous ruling needed to be clarified, and this meant that the resolution limited the meaning of the requirement that there must be a specific reason to demand a repeat recount of the elections . In this sense, the new ruling concludes that “those who push for the verification of zero votes are obliged to base their request on reporting irregularities in the electoral process.”
“Hints”
The court adds: “Although in these cases it does not make sense to require full proof of the alleged irregularity (…), at least evidence of it must be adduced.” Therefore, the use of the verification or control mechanisms of the file of the Electoral procedure “depends on the lawful person whom it intends to ask to comply with this minimum burden of reproach”, which was not the case with regard to the audit carried out in Madrid, where more than 30,000 votes were declared invalid. In this case, the allocation of the last seat in the Madrid constituency depended on 1,700 votes, the difference between those of the PP and those of the PSOE. If he had sided with the Socialists, the Junts vote would not have been essential for the possible inauguration of the current incumbent President Pedro Sánchez and the abstention of this group would have been sufficient.
The judgment emphasizes on this issue that “the isolated fact that the audit shows an adjusted difference between the two candidates in the race for the final seat in a constituency cannot, without further consideration, be regarded as a valid reason for the audit To demand zero.” Votes when there is no evidence of irregularities that call into question the proper observance of the guarantees inherent in the electoral process.” In doing so, the court wanted to cure itself, since there was a risk of future mass lawsuits without reasonable suspicion of errors or irregularities.
The PSOE’s request for protection stated that the right to stand as a candidate had been violated by the decisions not to count the votes taken by the Provincial Electoral Committee of Madrid, ratified by the Central Electoral Committee and subsequently by the Chamber of the Supreme Court. The challenge considered that the PSOE was “requiring a requirement that is not expressly provided for in the law, in particular the requirement to invoke irregularities in the electoral process.”
The Second Chamber’s unanimity in the decision – after admitting it to a trial that pitted progressives and conservatives against each other – was possible because the case served to clarify the Court’s doctrine – as the first of these sectors intended – and not to confirm the claim of the PSOE, against which the second of these blocs opposed. In fact, the judges of the conservative group Enrique Arnaldo and César Tolosa voted against the admission, and the former already wrote a dissenting vote against the first decision, in which he stated that “it is undeniable that the Organic Law of the General Electoral Regime (LOREG) does not recognize any “the alleged general and unconditional right to verify the zero votes not protested in the general examination, as claimed by the complainant political party in the Amparo case.”
The significance of the judgment now given is that it makes it clear that in order to demand a review of the zero votes, at least a “minimum burden of reproach” must be made and that the alleged “irregularity in the electoral process” does not necessarily have to be proven by full evidence, but it will be enough to provide evidence of its existence.”
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits