Voters will vote for Yes or No. Those who wish to accept the appeal will vote for Yes, and those who are against it will vote for No. The blank vote will be considered a No vote.
That establishes article 40 of the 1989 Election Law, which will apply this Sunday. The decision could surprise, since in a certain sense it can limit the possibility that a citizen can express his impartiality before a consultation of this type and that the decision to abstain does not influence either of the two options.
This situation has been noticed, with greater or lesser emphasis, by those responsible for the yes repeal campaign of the 135 articles of the Urgent Consideration Law (LUC). “The blank vote adds up to No” was what they alerted. The president of the Broad Front, Fernando Pereira, and the mayor of Montevideo, Carolina Cosse, joined in urging the undecided to annul their vote and thus not operate for either of the two options.
This is a particular effect of the blank vote in this type of instance. This does not happen, for example, in national elections, when they do not operate when allocating seats in Parliament. The regulation of the referendum resources mechanism, in force since last year of the first government of Julio María Sanguinetti, was carried out with the horizon of the then close consultation to repeal the law that established the expiration of the punitive claim of the State.
Some expressed that the solution found at that time should be the one that remains in force for all instances of this type.
“It was a legislative decision”, recalled in dialogue with The Observer the president of the Electoral Court, José Garchitorena. It was, he said, to avoid the hypothetical victory of one of the positions without the support of the majority of the votes cast.
And the blank vote is that: a vote cast that is counted and counted. It is considered so when, at the time of the count, in a given envelope, there is none of the valid voting sheets for the query. In this case, neither Yes nor No. In the event that there is anything else, but without ballot papers, it will be considered a “blank vote with a strange element”. To void the vote, there must be at least one sheet of each option together in the same envelope.
Pereira, the president of the Broad Front, described it graphically: “It is not canceled by placing only a coin, a card or a piece of salami, those are all blank votes”, he clarified. Thus, the law establishes that the electoral body gave rise to the appeal when more than half of the voters whose vote is considered valid have voted for the Yes.
Garchitorena pointed out that at the time the legislator could have been more restrictive. He could have established that the Yes should reach the majority of the votes, which in that case should also have exceeded the sum of the votes for the No, blank and annulled.
another form of expression
The famous article 40 It was sanctioned by the Senate in the framework of an extensive session, on the night of January 5, 1989, in the midst of a strong discussion. The Uruguayan nationalist senator Tourné objected that day to the fact that the blank vote was considered a vote for No.
“This practically represents omitting the entire electoral tradition that the life of the Republic has had in this matter,” Tourne said. “The blank vote does not imply a pronouncement, neither affirmative nor negative, regarding the act of the referendum”, remarked. Tourné noted that this is another form of expression of the citizen’s will, the one that “does not participate or express a determined opposition to the pronouncement or that, plain and simple, does not mean anything.”
In his view, the “pearl” of Article 40 undermined the clarity of electoral procedures and the way of counting votes. His co-religionist Carminillo Mederos coincided with Tourné. “I consider that the blank vote cannot be counted either for or against,” he said. “It is simply a blank vote.”
“The citizen who votes blank, votes blank and period”, Hugo Battle expressed for his part. So did Carlos Julio Pereyra. “If the citizen votes blank, he does not issue an opinion and we cannot adjudicate it”, the then nationalist senator had pointed out. Article 40 ended up being broken down and discussed separately from the rest of the law. And it was approved by 19 votes in 26 present.
The results and an unknown
On the same night of Sunday the 27th, the Electoral Court plans to disclose the data of the primary count. It will be the first step to know the official result. On Tuesday the 29th, the departmental scrutiny work will begin, which will last all week. Once concluded, the corporation will be able to proclaim an official result. There, Garchitorena recalled, the responsibility of the corporation ends in a process that will be far from over and that, venture, will continue to generate debate.
The work of the Court will culminate with the publication of the result in the Official Gazette and in two newspapers with national circulation. In the event of a Yes victory, it will report to the Executive Power, the General Assembly and the Supreme Court of Justice.
The 1989 law deliberately avoided regulating the effect of the consultation for strictly political reasons. Article 29 states that the Electoral Court “is the judge” of the act of the referendum” and of the entire procedure. But the law itself left without responding to the express text the effects of a triumph of the repeal.
That did not represent major problems in the three previous instances of this type, but it will be in the foreground with the LUC if the 135 articles are repealed. What will happen to the rules that were repealed by those articles is unknown for which there are two libraries and that would pose a legal challenge if the Yes wins: define whether the referendum has repeal or annulment effects in the 135 contested articles. It is a decision that, Garchitorena recalled, will be in the hands of Parliament or the Justice.
