The Superior Chamber of the Electoral Court could annul the results of the public consultation on the Revocation of the Mandate of the Federal Executive, but the four trials filed with that demand are inadmissible. The vote cast 17 days ago did not reach the minimum required by law —40% of the electoral roll— to have binding effects.
The calculation of the 16.5 million votes was impeccable, despite budget limitations. The quality of the Mandate Revocation process, just the opposite. On the eve of the solemn session of the electoral magistrates this afternoon, the Presidency of the Republic accused the General Council of the INE of exceeding its functions, by issuing the agreement that, in addition to informing the result —for the revocation, 6.44% and for ratification, 91.86%; with 1.67% of invalid votes— summarizes the anomalies and excesses that occurred throughout the last semester.
Attention is focused on the 18 precautionary measures issued by the INE Complaints and Denunciations Commission against public servants, including the federal Executive, the head of Government of CDMX and four other governors emanating from Morena; as well as federal deputies, senators, mayors and local deputies of that political formation. Those same 18 injunction agreements were subsequent to 18 default agreements.
The voting day prior to the popular consultation on April 10 was the federal election of June 6, 2021. The first took place over a period of 65 days, at the end of which 188 complaints were accumulated in the central offices of the INE and another 127 in the Institute’s decentralized bodies.
To measure the level of controversy: in the federal electoral process of 2021, 312 complaints and reports of violations of electoral regulations were received at the central level and 462 complaints in decentralized bodies over 263 days.
At its headquarters, the INE received 188 complaints and reports during the Mandate Revocation process. Among these, 146 were for propaganda contrary to the norm, of which 137 included requests for precautionary measures. Of the 17 for violation of constitutional article 134, 12 required suspensions.
In the end, the Complaints and Denunciations Commission issued 51 precautionary measures agreements; of which 28 were declarations of origin and 23 of inadmissibility. On these matters, the Electoral Court will have the last word.
In the Revocation of the Mandate, according to the ruling of the unconstitutionality action 151/2021 issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, the political parties were excluded from the promotion of the vote.
The Constitution, the current federal law and the INE guidelines also limited the participation of authorities and social organizations to intervene in the different phases of the process, including the collection of support signatures, the contracting of radio and television spots and the dissemination of propaganda. governmental.
On March 17, the Decree of authentic interpretation of the concept of government propaganda and its applicability in the Revocation of the Mandate was published. However, the Superior Chamber of the Electoral Court determined its inapplicability.
The prohibition for political parties to promote the participation of citizens in the Revocation of Mandate processes; the prohibition of public servants from disseminating government propaganda during the process; the prohibition of using public resources both for the collection of signatures of support and for promotion and propaganda; the prohibition of contracting advertising on radio and television and the prohibition of hindering the collection of signatures.
In addition to calculating the votes in general elections and popular consultations, the National Electoral Institute is obliged to comply with the constitutional mandate to guarantee the conditions for the casting of a free and informed vote.
Journalist
Vital signs
Journalist and columnist for El Economista, author of Doña Perpetua: Elba Esther Gordillo’s power and opulence. Elba Esther Gordillo against the SEP.