The Supreme Court will rule on who can vote on November 29: the census is prior to the blocking of the law on clean energy

MadridIn recent months, the PP and Vox have spread suspicions about alleged electoral fraud in two directions: postal voting and the right to vote of those naturalized through the Democratic Memory Law. After Isabel Díaz Ayuso took less than an hour once the Cortes were dissolved to recommend that people not vote by mail –a mistrust that the PP spokesperson has disavowed–, the focus is once again on the Supreme Court, which a month ago blocked the right to vote for thousands of people until they prove that they are descendants of exiles. Following the announcement of the 29-N election, both Iustitia Europa and Vox have demanded that the Supreme Court act to ensure that the precautionary measures are complied with, since the electoral body called to vote in the elections was closed two months ago, before the high court took the measures. This morning, the Minister of the Presidency, Fèlix Bolaños, warned that if the Supreme Court maintains the decision, the 29-N census will be "altered" and would lose 400,000 people added to the Electoral Census of Absent Residents –CERA– since 23-J.

The Supreme Court drew a distinction between the articles of the Democratic Memory Law and an instruction subsequently published by the Director General of Legal Security and Public Faith, Sofía Puente, which stipulates that the status of exiles would be presumed for "all Spaniards" who left Spain between July 1936 and December 1955, which made it easier to obtain nationality. Those who benefited from the second assumption were excluded from voting, but those who were born outside of Spain and are descendants of exiles for "political, ideological, or sexual orientation and identity reasons" could vote if the consular registries issued a "certification" that accredited it.

On Monday, October 5th, the Supreme Court began deliberating on the appeal for reconsideration filed by the State Attorney's Office against the precautionary measures. The Spanish government argued that the growth of the CERA does not pose "any risk" and that, even if it did, it would be "so negligible" that it "would not justify curtailing the voting rights of hundreds of thousands of people." "No one can predict the direction of the vote and, in any case, it could not alter the electoral result purely mathematically," it added. However, before making a decision, and following the calling of early elections, the Supreme Court has granted a non-extendable period of 48 hours, which ends on Thursday at noon, for all parties to express their views on the submissions presented by Iustitia Europa and Vox ahead of November 29th.

What happens with the 29th of November?

The electoral law stipulates that the electoral roll for an election closes on the “first day of the second month prior” to the call. Therefore, since the 29-N election was called on October 6, the census that will be applied was the one in force on August 1, prior to the precautionary measures, which were issued on September 10. The Supreme Court established that the registration in the CERA of files that were open was suspended and that the “electoral effects” of registrations that had previously received the green light for “electoral processes that could be called” were suspended.

In its document, to which ARA has had access, Iustitia Europa reports that the Directorate General for Consular Affairs presented a report three weeks ago acknowledging that there is no record of which path the beneficiaries of the Democratic Memory Law used to obtain nationality –whether through the law or the instruction– and that, therefore, 168,896 files must be examined individually. In parallel, the State Attorney's Office admitted that it was “materially impossible” to certify this within a “reasonable time frame”.

Vox considers that this entails an “absence of traceability and correct management” of the files, which implies “negligence” or an “implicit lack of will” to comply with the precautionary measures. And Iustitia Europa complains that this “deficit” cannot cause the precautionary measure to lapse: “The administration intends for the absence of information to be projected onto the validity and effectiveness of judicial protection,” it alleges. It believes it is a “legal loophole” that could result in people who should be excluded from the vote “ending up voting”.

Iustitia Europa wants the Supreme Court to determine “which registrations are subject to the suspension of electoral effects” and demands that the JEC and the electoral census office report on the “exact status” of the execution of the precautionary measures. However, Vox goes further and, in a document consulted by ARA, advocates for suspending the electoral effects of “any person” registered in the CERA through the democratic memory law. In exchange, it offers that those registered be able to individually “challenge” the electoral census and, therefore, that they themselves must be the ones to claim their right to vote.