In the discussion, the judges admitted that there is a distortion between the plurinominal seats that the parties obtained and the votes obtained by them, as alleged by the challengers and the jurists who approached the TEPJF to give their expert opinion.
The distortion is that Morena and its allies have – thanks to the fact that each one obtained 8% overrepresentation per party – 364 deputies, which is equivalent to 72.8% of the composition of the Chamber, but their national vote cast was 58.39%, that is, they had 14.41% more seats than votes.
In contrast, the opposition parties together obtained 38.94% of the votes, but only 26.8% of the House, with each party also having its respective 8% overrepresentation.
But historically, since 2009, the verification of the 8% limit of overrepresentation has been done on the basis of parties, not coalitions, and this distortion is part of the design, said presiding judge Mónica Soto.
“
There is a very big distortion. This Court cannot remove this distortion with a new, untimely interpretation,” he said, and one by one he dismissed the accusations, “there is no fraud in the law, there is no transfer of victories (…) there is no theft of votes, there is no fragmentation. Is the vote of the majority worth more than that of the minority? No.”
Felipe de la Mata and Felipe Fuentes Barrera voted in favor of her, while Judge Reyes Rodríguez cast a concurring vote, supporting the INE’s decision but proposing that Congress be notified so that it can proceed to issue the regulation on the allocation of pluris.
Thus, with the allocation of plurinominal deputies agreed upon by the INE, the federal election was declared concluded, and the integration of the 66th Legislature of the Chamber of Deputies. The sum of victories of majority deputies – already validated on August 8 – with the allocation of plurinominal deputies resulted in the super majority of Morena and allies.
The parties of the coalition Seguimos Haciendo Historia won 364 majority and proportional representation seats, equivalent to 72.8 percent of the Chamber of Deputies.
Morena, with 75 proportional representation seats, also has 161 majority deputies for a bench of 236 legislators.
The Labor Party will have 38 majority deputies – in districts where it was allied, since it did not win a single district – and 13 pluris, for a bench of 51 seats and the PVEM 57 majority deputies – also all allied – and 20 pluris for a bench of 77 deputies.
The three opposition parties together: National Action Party (PAN), Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) and Citizen Movement (MC) would have 26.8% of the legislative body, plus a seat won by the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) that was left unregistered, giving a total of 27% of the Chamber.
The PAN was allocated 40 plurinominal seats, which, added to the 32 majority seats won at the polls, resulted in a parliamentary group of 72 deputies.
The PRI was joined by 9 majority victories and a total of 26 pluri deputies, for a bench of 5 deputies.
The Citizen Movement, the only party that was not in coalition in the last election, was assigned 26 multi-seat deputies for its only district victory, which will bring its bench to 27 legislators.
In the discussion, the rapporteur, Felipe de la Mata, who proposed the draft judgment, summarized the challenges and their position as follows:
“What is really sought is to change the rules of the game once the game has already been played and a result has been obtained that some actors did not like. In any sporting event this would be absurd and inconceivable. In the game of democratic elections the same logic applies.”
Although four out of five judges approved the distribution of plurinominal deputies made by the INE, only three judges agreed with the argument.
The fourth, Reyes Rodríguez Mondragón, pointed out the distortion denounced by the challengers and proposed requiring Congress to choose a political formula, “a rule or modify the system of rules with which to resolve the inconsistency or incoherence into which our electoral system is falling.”
“I cannot agree with the various proposals in the lawsuits, despite their technical basis, which implies changing the rules of the game once it has ended,” he said.
I cannot do it –he added—“not even with good intentions to avoid regressive constitutional reforms for judicial independence, such as the direct popular election of judges… nor with reprehensible reforms such as extending the mandate of the judges who decide on this case,” he said when acknowledging receipt of the benefits proposed for magistrates in the judicial reform.
