The Presidency files a complaint with the Court for the limited number of voting centers
Newspaper La Jornada
Thursday, March 31, 2022, p. 4
The Presidency of the Republic asked the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) to analyze the position of the National Electoral Institute (INE) to reduce the number of polling stations that will be installed for the exercise of mandate revocation.
Through a complaint resource, the Legal Department of the Executive pointed out that the decision of the electoral authority was given
discretionary and unjustified and therefore violates citizen rights.
In the complaint resource 4/2022-CC, it indicates that the INE failed to comply with the provision of Minister Juan Luis González Alcántara Carrancá, who last December ordered him to carry out the consultation
in the most efficient manner, as the scheduled budget allows.
This provision was given in the face of constitutional controversy 209/2021, of the federal Executive against the determination of the INE to defer the revocation of the mandate, alleging lack of budget.
Upon admitting this trial, Minister González granted the suspension, ordering that the organization of the exercise continue, with the available budget.
However, the Executive points out, the INE used this provision of the SCJN to cut the number of boxes. Of the 160,000 that were installed in the 2018 federal election, only 57,516 will open.
Although the examining minister modified the suspension so that the revocation process could be carried out more efficiently by the INE, with the budget already programmed, this cannot be translated into a reduction in the number of voting booths, since this would imply affecting the right to political participation of citizensdenounces the council.
The complaint appeal was received by Minister González Alcántara Carrancá, who summoned the INE so that in the next 15 days it informs him about the reason he had for installing a number of voting booths less than that of a popular consultation or a normal election.
Specifying the acts that he has carried out to comply with the precautionary measure decreed, noting that, if he does not do so, the facts attributed to him will be presumed true and a fine of 10 to 180 days’ salary will be imposedadd the agreement sent to the INE.
This agreement was issued on March 23, so there will be just enough time for the SCJN to analyze the INE’s response and to give a resolution before April 10, the day of the consultation.