Why were the changes not accepted?
After the reform to the PRI statutes, three documents were presented to the INE to invalidate it. Among them, those of senators Miguel Ángel Osorio and senator Claudia Ruiz Massieu, as well as the former governor of Guerrero, Héctor Antonio Astudillo Flores.
The statute of that party orders that the statutory reforms must be made by the National Assembly, or the CPN if there are three exceptions: unless there is a resolution from the electoral authorities, when by legal reform the statutes must be harmonized or when there is a case duly justified, and with a vote of two thirds of its members.
The PRI argued that the “duly justified case” is decreed by the National Political Council itself, for which reason the INE exceeded itself when qualifying what is correctly justified or not.
None of them was accredited, according to the INE resolution, since Plan B for the electoral reform was not in force –and on December 19 it had already been frozen until February, in fact it was unlocked last Wednesday–in addition to the fact that the The content of this reform does not obligate changes to the PRI’s internal regulations.
“The point is very simple, is there legal reform or not?” exposed the president adviser, Lorenzo Córdova, when establishing that even today, in that it is not promulgated, there is no electoral reform, “the changes were approved when there was no law.”
In addition, “the fact that there were local elections was not a legal impediment” to convene an Assembly, he mentioned.
Plan B “was legally non-existent, even today it has not been applied,” said counselor Jaime Rivera.
In a marathon session, the councilors resolved that the PRI failed to comply with the statutory procedure to carry out its statutory reform, since “it should have founded and motivated its competence in a duly justified case” which did not occur since Plan B does not apply.
In addition, the competence of the CPN to carry out the approval of the amendments in the LXII extraordinary session was not accredited because “it did not found and motivate the duly justified case that would empower it to do so.”
