PSOE takes to the TC the refusal of the Supreme Court to review the null votes of 23J and alleges a review in Badajoz in 2015

The high court rejected the request of the socialists considering that the difference of 1,200 votes was not enough for the review

The PSOE has appealed before the Constitutional Court (TC) the decision of the Supreme Court (TS) to reject its request to review some 30,000 invalid votes from the general elections of July 23 in the province of Madrid and to annul the proclamation of the leader of the PP Carlos García Adanero as elected deputy.

In an appeal for electoral protection, to which Europa Press has had access, the Socialists have argued that the Supreme Court's refusal has violated the fundamental right to passive suffrage by "carrying out a restrictive interpretation" of the Organic Law of the General Electoral Regime (LOREG) , "regarding the general scrutiny and the possibility of opening all the invalid votes recorded".

In his opinion, it has also violated the fundamental right of equal access to elective public office, "by producing a differentiated factual situation between representatives whose sphere of election is local and those whose sphere of election is provincial or greater." .

In this sense, the formation has insisted in its 25 pages that "there is no precept in the LOREG that expressly prohibits claiming the review of null votes that, in fact, are in the power of the Electoral Board in the act of general scrutiny as part of the number one envelope sent by each polling station".

In the framework of its appeal, the PSOE has made reference to the doctrine of the Constitutional itself and has stressed that the Supreme Court ruling avoids "as it says" a ruling of the TC of 2015 "knowing in the most exact way the true will of the voters manifested in the electoral process" which, in his opinion, "is the criterion that should always govern the interpretation of electoral regulations".

In this sense, the party has made ugly the fact that the Supreme Court made its decision "based solely on the number of votes necessary" and has recalled that the Constitutional Court already accepted in 2015 that the null vote in Badajoz be reviewed, where the votes necessary to alter the Parliament's composition was "about 900" with respect to 7,118 null votes, compared to the 1,200 needed in Madrid with respect to some 30,000 null votes.

"The question is not whether it is enough to allege only a reduced number of votes necessary for the review of null votes, but whether a Provincial Electoral Board, as an electoral administration, can not grant the right recognized by law on the basis of probabilistic criteria without concrete objective foundations when it has been exercised at the scheduled time, diligently, and without abuse of the right", the Socialists have indicated.

In line, the PSOE has stressed that "the reduced vote necessary for the PSOE to obtain its 11th deputy for the Madrid constituency with respect to the invalid vote declared in the minutes of the electoral tables, prevents us from considering that an abusive exercise is being carried out of the right". And he has defended that this "is what accredits the importance and possible incidence of the review of all the null votes in the ballot box, which could give rise to the variation of the allocation, which justifies the opening and review of all the envelopes of the scrutiny where the null votes and the revision of these should be recorded".

Thus, the formation has asked the Constitutional Court to grant them the requested protection and to declare the aforementioned fundamental rights violated by the Supreme Court ruling.

THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME

The PSOE goes before the guarantee court after the Supreme Court considered that "the mere numerical difference in the results that are claimed in this case (1,200 votes) is not a sufficient basis for the review."

In a sentence handed down last Friday, to which this news agency had access, the magistrates of the Vacation Chamber carried out an examination of the jurisprudence and doctrine of the TC and concluded that the PSOE petition did not meet the requirements established by the guarantee court. They considered that "arithmetic data or solvent statistical calculations had not been provided to verify, even hypothetically, the relevance of the vote review in the final result and in the allocation of the controversial seat."

The PSOE went to the high court with the intention of reversing the decision of the Central Electoral Board (JEC) because, in its opinion, the proclamation as elected deputy of the PP leader Carlos García Adanero had "cut off" the possibility of proclaiming the Socialist Javier Rodríguez Palacios, number 11 on the Madrid lists. It should be remembered that, if they got one more seat, the PSOE would have an easier time with a hypothetical investiture of Pedro Sánchez because they would no longer need a vote in favor of Junts, but one abstention would suffice.

In its appeal, the formation insisted that the JEC had misinterpreted the electoral law by restricting its right to review invalid votes. And he argued that it was necessary for these votes to be reviewed to determine if he had obtained 121 or 122 seats in the Congress of Deputies.

The Supreme Court, however, said that the argument put forward by the PSOE could not be accepted and stressed that it could not be accepted that "in the specific case analyzed, the mere adjustment of the result requires the inspection or verification of the performance of each Board in the task of its functions". He explained that it was not possible to agree on a preventive review of the null votes "in case some erroneous assessment of the null vote could be appreciated" that was favorable to the PSOE.

In this sense, the magistrates defaced the Socialists who did not base their request on "an irregularity or vice in the electoral process that may imply the lack of correlation between the will of the electoral body and the final result, obtained after the orderly and regular development of the process in accordance with the LOREG".