The PSOE appealed to the Constitutional Court against the Supreme Court’s refusal to consider the 30,302 votes registered in the last general election in the Madrid constituency. In their letter, provided by Cadena Ser and accessed by elDiario.es, the Socialists defend the “particular constitutional importance” of the issue and argue that its possible evaluation, which would lead to a recount of undeclared invalid votes. The Madrid district in the July 23, 2023 election “could lead to a change in the composition of Congress.”
The Socialists unsuccessfully demanded — first from the provincial electoral college and then from the central electoral college — “a check by revising their validity” for all the invalid votes cast in the Madrid constituency. They made the request at the end of the general recount, which confirmed that the PP had won 16 seats for Madrid, one more than the 23J night due to the votes of Spaniards living abroad, the CERA vote. The seat the Conservatives took from the PSOE, which was now 1,339 valid votes short of regaining it. This is a key MP as it forces Pedro Sánchez to reach Younts’ “yes” to guarantee the investment by not being able to get a simple majority with his abstention alone, as was the case before the external votes were counted.
According to the socialists, the appeal refers to “absolute relevance and general political consequences”: whether it is necessary to assert “irregularities or malfeasance in the electoral process” and to prove that it is carried out.
The Supreme Court’s criteria are that there must be “objective, arithmetical, or statistical elements that create uncertainty in the outcome,” while socialists maintain that it is not necessary to prove “any irregularities or specific cause.” “Re-verify” those votes and ask for a one-by-one review of the votes because of the “slight difference” that would allow them to take PP’s seat.
In its appeal, PSOE claims that the decisions of the District Election Board and the Central Election Board violated the fundamental right of passive election and the fundamental right of equal access to elective public office. His thesis is that preventing the review of invalid votes can undermine the right of citizens to represent themselves if it does not allow access to the material truth actually expressed in the vote; and to impose a requirement to allege or prove “malfeasance or malfeasance in the electoral process” when seeking representation in order to seek reconsideration of an uncontested invalid vote.
Source: El Diario
