The decree law of the labor reform was validated by a single vote. Alberto Casero, a PP deputy, gave the decisive vote electronically, and then stated that the computer system had not worked well. From the PP and from Vox resources were announced to the Constitutional Court, and I would like to contribute some point on the legal background of the controversy.
The Constitutional Court dealt with a similar matter in ruling STC 361/2006. In 2004 a member of the Basque Parliament could not vote because the electronic mechanism of her seat did not work. She appealed for protection to the Constitutional Court which, two years later, agreed with her, although without forcing a repeat vote. The sentence, how could it be otherwise, considers that the vote of parliamentary representatives is a fundamental right that is protected by article 23 of the Constitution. However, and this is of interest for the discussion on Mr. Casero’s vote, he recalls that this right is a right that must be exercised within the framework of parliamentary regulations (legal basis 2.b).
Which brings us to the resolution of the Board of the Congress of Deputies of May 21, 2012, regarding the telematic voting. The sixth point of the same indicates that the deputy who had voted electronically “may not cast his vote in person without the express authorization of the Table of the Chamber which, in the event that it decides to authorize the vote in person, will declare the vote null and void. .” As the telematic vote is cast before the vote in person, this provision would allow a rectification of the vote cast remotely. Mr. Casero did not obtain permission from the Board to vote in person, and from there we can begin to consider if your right to participation was violated.
I think not. Unlike the case of the deputy of the Basque Parliament dealt with in STC 361/2006 mentioned, Mr. Casero was able to vote and his vote was counted. He affirms that he registered in a different sense from the one he voted for, and there is talk of a system failure that the technical services of Congress do not confirm. Another interpretation, which Mr. Casero does not accept, is that he was wrong to vote “yes & rdquor; when he wanted to vote “no & rdquor ;. In any case, there is no right to rectify a vote that has already been cast. When we vote in person in a general election, we cannot ask the presidency of the electoral table to return the envelope deposited in the ballot box because we have made the wrong ballot.
Nor do I believe that there is the right to cancel the telematic vote to vote in person, thinking about what the cited fragment of the 2012 Table resolution says. If it were a right, that resolution would not speak of “authorization”; I would say that, at the request of the interested party, the Table cancels the telematic vote so that the vote can be exercised in person. And, in my opinion, the president of Congress, who is also the president of her table and convenes it, does not have the obligation to convene it either because a deputy or a parliamentary group requests it. It may seem appropriate or convenient to do so, but it does not seem to me that a right is violated if it is not convened. We would be in that case if there was a right to rectify a vote cast, but, as I said before, such a right does not exist.
Related news
The Congress is a collegiate body, and its will is formed from the vote of the deputies. Once they have issued it, they lose any rights to it. Obviously, they must have mechanisms that allow this vote to be faithfully reflected, both when it is done electronically in the chamber and when it is cast remotely by telematic means. But, from what we know so far, there is no indication that the system malfunctioned. If this is so, it seems to me that the resources of the PP and Vox have little future.
The nervousness of some of the protagonists of the complicated vote on the labor reform is understandable. But he would agree that they assume the need to lower the tone and attenuate the flashes of verbal pyrotechnics. They are things of life, some will say. Perhaps, but of life understood as a story full of sound and fury and told by a fool, as Shakespeare presented it in the mouth of Macbeth. We deserve better.