The PSOE filed an appeal against the refusal of the TS and alleged a review in Badajoz in 2015

The Constitutional Court (TC) will meet this Tuesday, at 6:00 p.m., to decide whether or not to admit the appeal for electoral amparo filed by the PSOE against the decision of the Supreme Court (TS) to reject its request to review some 30,000 invalid votes in the general elections held on July 23 in the province of Madrid and to annul the proclamation of PP leader Carlos García Adanero as elected deputy.

This was reported this morning by the court of guarantees after having received the appeal from the Socialists on August 28, who alleged that the Supreme Court’s refusal had violated the fundamental right to passive suffrage by “carrying out a restrictive interpretation” of the Organic Law of the General Electoral Regime (LOREG), “regarding the carrying out of the general scrutiny and the possibility of opening all the invalid votes recorded”.

The PSOE also assured that the fundamental right of equal access to elective public office had been violated, “by producing a differentiated factual situation between representatives whose sphere of election is local and those whose sphere of election is provincial or greater “.

In this sense, the formation insisted in its 25 pages, to which Europa Press had access, that “there is no precept in the LOREG that expressly prohibits claiming the review of invalid votes that, in fact, are in the power of the Board Electoral in the act of general scrutiny as part of the number one envelope sent by each polling station”.

The decision of admission to processing in the Constitutional will fall into the hands of the magistrates of the Second Chamber, with a progressive majority and with Inmaculada Moltabán as president.

Legal sources have explained to this news agency that in this phase –the admission phase– it is not necessary for the magistrates to listen to the criteria of the Prosecutor’s Office, who will then be able to rule on the merits of the matter if the case is admitted for processing. resource. Similarly, the Public Ministry has the possibility of appealing if the court rejects the appeal.

In line, the sources consulted have specified that if the letter of the Socialists is admitted, the Constitutional Court plans to resolve on the merits next week in one of its rooms.


In the framework of its appeal, the PSOE made reference to the doctrine of the Constitution itself and stressed that the Supreme Court ruling prevents “as a 2015 TC ruling says” from “knowing in the most exact way the true will of the voters expressed in the electoral process” which, in his opinion, “is the criterion that must always govern the interpretation of electoral regulations.”

In this sense, the party made it ugly that the Supreme Court made its decision “based solely on the number of votes necessary” and recalled that the Constitutional Court already accepted in 2015 that the null vote in Badajoz be reviewed, where the votes necessary to alter the composition of the Parliament was “about 900” with respect to 7,118 null votes, compared to the 1,200 needed in Madrid with respect to some 30,000 null votes.

“The question is not whether it is enough to allege only a reduced number of votes necessary for the review of null votes, but whether a Provincial Electoral Board, as an electoral administration, can not grant the right recognized by law on the basis of probabilistic criteria without concrete objective foundations when it has been exercised at the scheduled time, diligently, and without abuse of rights”, the Socialists pointed out.

In line, the PSOE stressed that “the reduced vote necessary for the PSOE to obtain its 11th deputy for the Madrid constituency with respect to the invalid vote declared in the minutes of the electoral tables, prevents us from considering that an abusive exercise of the right”. And he defended that this “is what accredits the importance and possible incidence of the review of all the null votes in the ballot box, which could give rise to the variation of the allocation, which justifies the opening and review of all the envelopes of the scrutiny where The null votes and the revision of these must be recorded”.

Thus, the formation asked the Constitutional Court to grant them the requested protection and to declare the aforementioned fundamental rights violated by the Supreme Court ruling.


The PSOE went before the guarantee court after the Supreme Court considered that “the mere numerical difference in the results that are claimed in this case (1,200 votes) is not a sufficient basis for review.”

In a sentence, to which this news agency had access, the magistrates of the Vacation Chamber carried out an examination of the jurisprudence and doctrine of the TC and concluded that the PSOE petition did not meet the requirements established by the court of guarantees. They considered that “arithmetic data or solvent statistical calculations had not been provided to verify, even hypothetically, the relevance of the vote review in the final result and in the allocation of the controversial seat.”

The PSOE went to the high court with the intention of reversing the decision of the Central Electoral Board (JEC) because, in its opinion, the proclamation as elected deputy of the PP leader Carlos García Adanero had “cut off” the possibility of proclaiming the Socialist Javier Rodríguez Palacios, number 11 on the Madrid lists. It should be remembered that, if they got one more seat, the PSOE would have a hypothetical investiture of Pedro Sánchez easier because they would no longer need a vote in favor of Junts, but one abstention would suffice.

In its appeal, the formation insisted that the JEC had misinterpreted the electoral law by restricting its right to review invalid votes. And he argued that it was necessary for these votes to be reviewed to determine if he had obtained 121 or 122 seats in the Congress of Deputies.

The Supreme Court, contrary to the criteria of the Prosecutor’s Office, said that the argument put forward by the PSOE could not be accepted and stressed that it could not be accepted that “in the specific case analyzed, the mere adjustment of the result requires the inspection or verification of the performance of each Bureau in the performance of its functions”. He explained that it was not possible to agree on a preventive review of the null votes “in case some erroneous assessment of the null vote could be appreciated” that was favorable to the PSOE.

In this sense, the magistrates defaced the Socialists who did not base their request on “an irregularity or vice in the electoral process that may imply the lack of correlation between the will of the electoral body and the final result, obtained after the orderly and regular development of the process in accordance with the LOREG”.