Dissatisfied with the pluris, they wanted to change the result, says De la Mata

Fabiola Martinez

The newspaper La Jornada
Saturday, August 31, 2024, p. 5

The request of former councilors and former magistrates for the current electoral authorities to give another interpretation to the Constitution – in the assignment of plurinominal seats – should then include the recognition that at the time they were wrong, said Felipe de la Mata, author of the project of the Electoral Tribunal of the Judicial Branch of the Federation (TEPJF) approved this week, from which the integration of the Chamber of Deputies was confirmed.

In fact, he noted, They did not agree with the resulteven though they know that “the referee must use the rules in force during the game; he cannot pull any other one out of his hat.

“Now they say that the vote should never have been taken that way. We must remember that the way in which we applied the Constitution, the law and the agreements of the National Electoral Institute was the same as that used in 2009, 2012, 2015, 2018 and 2021. I imagine then that they did some self-reflection. If they sincerely came to the conclusion that the interpretation was different, then they should have started by saying: ‘we were wrong.’”

Last Wednesday, the upper chamber of the TEPJF confirmed, by majority vote (four to one), the agreement issued by the General Council of the INE by which the federal deputies of proportional representation were assigned and, when resolving other means of challenge, also confirmed the plurinominal seats of the Senate. In both cases, Morena and its allies, PT and PVEM, predominate.

The project prepared by De la Mata declared all the opposition’s allegations unfounded; the central response is that the Constitution and precedents – both from 2015 and 2018 of the TEPJF – establish that the allocation must be made based on the results of each political party, not by coalition; also, that the magistrates must guarantee the certainty and legal security of the June 2 vote.

On the contrary, some academics, including former presidents of the IFE/INE and former presidents of the TEPJF, spoke out through different channels to ask their successors to interpret the law differently and prevent Morena and its allies from achieving the qualified majority necessary to make constitutional reforms.

In this context, the speaker stressed that the TEPJF has always voted in the same way. It would be strange if we changed the interpretation, because then it would seem that what we want is to change the result to favor other people.he commented to The Day.

Faced with suggestions, pressures and threats – as denounced by the president of the TEPJF, Mónica Soto – De la Mata expressed that the point to be elucidated is how to apply the limits to overrepresentation defined in the Constitution, the law, the INE agreements and in all the precedents, and it is per game, that’s clear.

However, he commented that during the debate on the topic he heard very good ideas which could be applied in the future, since once the election day is over the rules cannot be changed.

I insist on this: it could be a very good idea to make another interpretation, yes, but it will have to be for another process. Really, otherwise it would seem that what we want is to change the result..

The parties that challenged the law have benefited from the same system in previous processes, he added.

Otherwise, the one on Wednesday It was a simple case, legally very simple, since the Constitution, the law and all the precedents go in the same direction.within the framework of a mixed system, with a predominance of relative majority spaces, in which pure proportionality is not intended.

He recalled that the spaces plurinominal They were created in 1977, with 100 seats of that type, so that minority parties would have a voice in the Chamber, and in the 1980s another 100 were added.

As for the first steps of the new legislature, such as the change of the parliamentary and senatorial groups, he said that this was a political matter. Once the election and the respective assignment of the court are over, we no longer get involved in parliamentary acts of political content, in actions no longer governed by electoral logic.he stressed.