Jorge Alcocer V.
Base I of Article 41 of the Constitution reads:
“Political parties are public interest organizations; The law will determine the rules and requirements for their legal registration, the specific forms of their intervention in the electoral process and the corresponding rights, obligations and prerogatives. When nominating their candidates, the principle of gender parity will be observed.
“The purpose of political parties is to promote people’s participation in democratic life, promote the principle of gender parity, promote the integration of bodies of political representation and, as civil organizations, ensure their access to the exercise of public power. , in accordance with the programs, principles and ideas which they postulate, and through universal, free, secret and direct suffrage, and with rules established by election laws to ensure gender parity in nominations for various popularly elected positions” (Emphasis mine)
More transparent, no water.
The Constitution requires parity to be in candidates, not in election results. But there cannot be a second one, because it would be a double violation of the Constitution itself. The first must meet the above standard. The second violation would be popular sovereignty, which is expressed through free, secret and direct voting (Article 40 of the Constitution). In a democracy, the most important value protected by the Constitution and laws is voting.
However, there are those who postulate that above the Constitution there is a “parial republic”, which, according to them, follows from the so-called “parity in everything”. The question would be purely academic if it were not for the fact that in 2021 the TEPJF High Chamber decided that when applying the rules for the granting of multi-member seats in the legislature of the LXV Chamber of Deputies of the INE, there will be a necessary adjustment in order to have a completely equal legislature. (SUP-REC-1414/2021 and cumulative).
To this end, the Supreme Chamber obliged the INE to deprive the required number of men of their mandates in order to leave these seats to women until 250 women deputies were elected. Given that the verdicts are final and indisputable, the violation was carried through and the elected deputies were deprived of the constitutional right to have female candidates take their seats, although the popular vote had not granted them this right.
The bad precedent is planned to be repeated and expanded by 2024, including both houses, deputies and senators. In the draft agreement, which is already being analyzed in the committees of the INE General Council, its authors propose a procedure similar to the 2021 procedure, both for the distribution of seats and for multi-member seats.
Passing ConstitutionGiven the precedent of the 2021 TEPJF, INE board members approving this agreement will be making decisions above the will of the voters. Eleven council members or less will replace the citizens in order to bend their will in the event that the popular vote on June 2, 2024 votes for more male candidates than female candidates, in which case they will deprive the former of their right to provide these seats for women and establish exact parity in the integration of the two houses of the Congress of the Union. If the opposite happens, there will be no adjustment because, according to the electoral authorities’ interpretation, parity only protects women; For them, it’s the floor, not the ceiling.
Above popular sovereignty will be the interpretation of the INE and perhaps – I still hope there is room to hear arguments – a decision Upper room TEPJF. We reach these extremes through the interpretation of the so-called “parity in everything,” the only support of which is four words smuggled into Section II of Article 35 of the Constitution. No other clause in our Magna Carta or election laws contains the words “parity in all things.”
Also, the only thing INE is missing is to decide that if at least five candidates for governor are not the winners, the winning candidates will be stripped of their victory to move us closer to a Parity Republic. Of course, in order for the measure to be democratic and impartial, the alienation will be carried out by drawing lots.
The Constitution states that parity is mandatory in candidacies for legislators and city councils.
The Constitution does not establish parity in nominations for sole positions, that is, positions that are submitted to one person, for example, holders Executive branchfederal or local.
The Constitution establishes in Article 53 the so-called “principle of gender alternation” in multi-member lists of federal deputies, and not when nominating candidates for single positions.
The Constitution establishes that popular sovereignty belongs to the people and is expressed through the vote of the citizens.
P.S: As an alumnus of UNAM, I join the call in defense of its autonomy put forward by the new rector Leonardo Lomeli Vanegas. Good luck in your business!
Follow me: www.vozyvoto.com
Source: Aristegui Noticias
John Cameron is a journalist at The Nation View specializing in world news and current events, particularly in international politics and diplomacy. With expertise in international relations, he covers a range of topics including conflicts, politics and economic trends.