Fabiola Martínez
La Jornada newspaper
Thursday, September 25, 2025, p. 8
Jesús Octavio García González is the new head of the administration of the National Electoral Institute (INE), designated as office manager, which adds 11 positions at the Executive General Meeting, of 19 seats in that instance of decision.
The appointment in favor of García González, former official at the Electoral Institute of Veracruz, occurs in the midst of other changes in the financial and accounting area of the agency, which this year exercises a budget of around 20 billion pesos, and by 2026 its request is 25 thousand 956 million (apart from the 7,737 financing to political parties).
After knowing the assignment of the person responsible for one of the main areas of the INE circulated different versions that the new official was manager of materials marketing companies, at a time when the Institute must plan millionaire purchases.
The foregoing, because in 2027 the processes will coincide to renew half of positions in the Judiciary, the Chamber of Deputies, Gubernaturas and Mayors, among other elections in charge or coordinated by the INE.
As for the background of García González, there is at least one tender of the Jalisco Common Institute, in 2021, where a person with that name as a representative of GRAF boxes appears, dedicated to the manufacture and sale of screens and other voting materials.
That name also appears in a tender from the Campeche Institute for last year’s election; in this case as legal representative of the corporate ZEG SA DE CV.
For now, the lawyer – whose curriculum does not yet appear on the official page of the INE, but his name and position – already joined the Executive General Meeting.
Directors, free
The INE issued a statement stating that the directors have full freedom to issue votes based on legal and technical convictions, “without pressures or conditioning”; Hence, “no individual assessment can be subject to administrative persecution or external sanction.”
The brief is not explicitly mentioned the investigation of the internal control body against six directors (three of the current integration) for having voted in favor of “postponing” the realization of the consultation of revocation of mandate in 2001, with the argument that the Institute had not received from the Chamber of Deputies the necessary resources to do it.
