Mexico City. In front of the judicial election allegedly without “good reputation”, the National Electoral Institute (INE) will not cancel candidacies or cover the omissions of the evaluation committees, because it has no constitutional or legal powers for it.
Unanimously, the general Council of the INE responded in this way to the presidents of the chambers of senadurías and deputations who requested the INE to cancel 26 candidacies, eight for not complying with a minimum average required in a bachelor’s degree, and 18 because according to that evaluation they do not enjoy good reputation, for their relationship with current criminal investigations of the federal order.
The Institute ratified that it will review alleged tests against the contestants, but this will happen after the election and only the winners.
“Attentive to the appearance of good right, the Institute today makes a decision that grants certainty, without anticipating, definitive judgments and that allows progress in the process with order and legality,” said the president, Guadalupe Taddei.
He warned that to vote against some candidacy, at this time, it would affect the preferences, which is not the role of the institute.
With different approaches, the directors reproached that the legislative intends to endorse this responsibility to the INE.
The counselor Dania Ravel warned that accepting the request of the presidents of the Chambers would also mean faculties of other instances.
“This aims to put the institute in a position in which you have to take care of issues that do not correspond to it. We are not facing a supervenating circumstance or fact but before the omission of complying with the obligation that these evaluation committees had to review that each person complied with all the requirements established in the Constitution and in the law,” he said.
Then, UUC-KIB Swords said that while the INE has been solving on the march problems that “did not generate”, in this particular issue there is no legal grip to do so, especially because the power to review and qualify the files of the applicants remained in the hands of other instances, namely, the technical committees of each power of the union, and final candidacies
-“I am going to vote in favor of this agreement, not noting to point out my concern for the extremes that are required at the INE to act, when the actions claimed had to be carried out in previous moments and by other authorities of the Mexican State,” he said.
The next turn was taken by the counselor Carla Humphrey, who recalled that this judicial election starts from deficiencies, for example, that the registration of candidacies was made by authorities that are not specialists in the subject (evaluation committees).
In addition, he stressed, neither the Constitution nor the electoral law itself, regulate the assumptions of cancellation of candidacies to a subsequent review of the suitability or eligibility requirements.
He stressed that the next stage of candidacies review is before the delivery of majority records and declaration of validity of the election.
In this second analysis, this will be in charge of the INE, the documents that eventually receive related to sentences framed in the “8 of 8 against violence” will be evaluated, plus two causes added by this council: to be delinquent to pay the food pension and/or be a fugitive from justice.
Humphrey clarified that while any INE agreement can be challenged before the Electoral Court, at this time “this authority could not cancel, but it will review that the eligibility requirements are met by all the eligibility requirements before the delivery of majority records.”
At that time, he added, the information provided by the directive tables of the legislative chambers will be needed, as well as other writings of people in general who request the cancellation of different candidacies.
In a similar sense, the directors Arturo Castillo, Claudia Zavala and President Guadalupe Taddei, who stressed that the issue does not worry because there is clarity in the way in which the INE must act, especially to protect the principle of certainty of the contestants and the voters.
He also indicated, objectivity and impartiality, imply that our decisions are adopted, without biases, without inclinations, without seeking, benefiting or harming any candidacy or at the time of political forces in the other ordinary processes.
