The magistrate of constitutional Court Laura Díez, rapporteur of the PSOE appeal against the Supreme Court ruling that rejected reviewing more than 30,000 invalid votes counted in Madrid in the general elections of July 23, will propose rejecting the socialists’ arguments.
Legal sources have informed EFE this Monday of the meaning of Díez’s proposal, which coincides with the report presented by the Prosecutor’s Officeand on which the Second Chamber of the court must rule on Tuesday morning.
The vice president of the court, Inmaculada Montalbán, has called the Second Chamber at 9:00 a.m., just an hour before the ordinary plenary session of the Constitutional Court begins, so it is expected that failure be immediate.
The presentation fell to the progressive magistrate Laura Díez, whose recusal raised by the PP for having worked “under the direct orders” of Carmen Calvo and Félix Bolaños from February 4, 2020 to April 26, 2022, a request that the Chamber has unanimously rejected.
According to the sources consulted, Díez agrees with the criteria of the Prosecutor’s Office that has amended its position given that in the procedure before the Supreme Court it supported the PSOE’s appeal “in view of the closeness of the electoral result” and to “clear any trace of reasonable doubt about the true and exact will” of the citizens.
But now, the Prosecutor’s Office opposes the socialists’ request, understanding that the arguments presented in the Supreme Court ruling, which endorsed the Central Electoral Board“they conform to the doctrine that emanates from constitutional jurisprudence.”
The Supreme Court considered that the requirements were not met required in the doctrine nor had data been provided to verify the relevance of the count in the final result. “The mere numerical difference in the results alleged in this case (1,200 votes) it is not sufficient basis for review,” the Supreme Court ruled.
And now the Prosecutor’s Office explains that said doctrine “does not allow us to recognize the existence of a unconditional right, based on mere will expressed by the interested parties, to the review by the Electoral Boards of the votes declared null and not protested”.
“Nor maintain that such supposed right is part of the essential content of the fundamental right to access representative public positions under equal conditions,” adds the Prosecutor’s Office in relation to article 23 of the Constitution.
For this reason, he considers that the resolutions of the Supreme Court’s Vacation Chamber and the electoral administration “they did not violate the aforementioned fundamental right”.