General elections survey: Vox skyrockets after Ceuta and gains 9 seats while the PP loses 8 and the PSOE 2, according to GAD3

As of September 2026, there is no "major comprehensive reform" of the Organic Law of the General Electoral Regime (LOREG) at an advanced stage of processing, but there are several partial reforms. Some have already been completed and are in force, and two other relevant initiatives remain open in the amendment phase in the Cortes Generales.

1. LOREG reforms already approved in this legislature

The most recent and clear reform is the one that adapts the LOREG to the constitutional reform that recognizes Formentera its own senator:

• Organic Law Proposal to modify the LOREG (Formentera as its own constituency): initiative of the Socialist Group, processed in Congress and Senate (files 122/000280 in Congress and (15)624/000010 in Senate).
• Its purpose is to modify articles 161.2 and 165.2 of the LOREG so that Ibiza and Formentera become separate constituencies in Senate elections, so that each island elects one senator.
• Congress approved it and sent it to the Senate in spring 2026, according to the press release from Congress "Congress agrees to process in a single reading the reform of the electoral law to regulate the election of a senator for Formentera" (Congress note).
• The Senate definitively approved it in Plenary on June 24, 2026, by 252 votes in favor and 5 abstentions, with the reform approved by the Cortes Generales (Senate note).
• The reform has already been published in the Official State Gazette (BOE) and has come into force, so its parliamentary processing is concluded.

This is a specific and very limited reform of the LOREG (constituency and election of a senator) that does not reopen the entire electoral system, but adapts the law to the new wording of article 69.3 of the Constitution.

2. Main LOREG reforms still in processing

In parallel, there are partial LOREG reforms still underway. Two initiatives stand out:

• Government Organic Bill to modify the LOREG (121/000063, Congress).
  • Author: Government of Spain.
  • Purpose: to modify the LOREG, among other things, to:
    • Make it mandatory to hold at least one electoral debate on public media in each call.
    • Regulate in more detail the participation of "significant political groups" in those debates.
    • Strengthen the transparency of polls, including the publication of anonymized microdata, as emphasized by both specialized press and the Government's own communication (Ministry of Presidency note, and analysis in Demócrata).
  • Current phase: Congress has published the bill and it is in the amendment submission phase in the Lower House. The deadline for amendments has been extended and, as of the last update, remains open with an extension until September 16, 2026.
  • This means the text has not yet moved to the committee work or report phase: it is at a relatively early stage, where groups outline their proposed changes.
• Organic Law Proposal on causes of ineligibility originating from the Senate (15)622/000048 – 124/000028.
  • Political authorship: Popular Group in the Senate; it was taken into consideration by the Senate Plenary in May 2025 and then sent to Congress.
  • Purpose: to modify the LOREG regarding causes of ineligibility (who cannot be a candidate), strengthening certain cases.
  • Current phase: in processing in Congress, the deadline for submitting amendments has also been extended until September 16, 2026, so it is also in the amendment phase, without having entered the committee or report phase yet.

Therefore, the two "live" reform lines are partial: one driven by the Government (debates and polls) and another, of parliamentary origin, on ineligibilities. Both are at the same procedural stage: open to amendments in Congress.

3. Other LOREG initiatives rejected or lapsed

It is important to distinguish these reforms in processing from other LOREG proposals that have already failed in this legislature:

• Organic Law Proposals from Vox to strengthen the prevention of electoral fraud through postal voting (for example, 122/000074 and 122/000200), which Congress rejected at the consideration phase, ending their processing.
• A proposal from the Popular Group in Congress (122/000110) also on causes of ineligibility, which was rejected in October 2024.

These initiatives are no longer part of the parliamentary agenda; what remains active are the Government's bill and the proposal on ineligibilities in the amendment phase, and the Formentera reform, which is already approved and in force.

The Spanish Constitution assigns the President of the Government a central role in the dissolution of the Cortes Generales and the calling of general elections, but always framed within a system of checks and balances where the King and the Congress itself intervene. The power is neither absolute nor personal: it is subject to very precise material and temporal limits.

1. Core of the competence: initiative and countersignature

Article 115 of the CE establishes that the King may dissolve the Congress, the Senate, or the Cortes Generales and call elections at the proposal of the President of the Government, after deliberation of the Council of Ministers. From this derive two specific powers of the president:

• Political initiative for early dissolution: it is up to the president to decide whether it is advisable to end the mandate of the Chambers early and hold elections. Without his proposal, the King cannot dissolve them voluntarily.
• Countersignature of the decree of dissolution and call: the formal decree is issued by the King, but it must be countersigned by the President of the Government. It is the act of countersigning that assumes the political and legal responsibility of the call.

Furthermore, the decree must set the date of the elections, within the deadlines established by the Constitution and the electoral law, which implies a relevant power of the president (and the Government) in determining the exact timing of the electoral event.

2. Coordination with the King and the Cortes Generales

The Constitution distributes functions to prevent the dissolution power from being purely presidentialist:

• The King always acts in a regulated manner: he does not decide politically; he is limited to dissolving and calling according to the proposal of the President of the Government (art. 115) or, where appropriate, according to the automatic mandate in investiture matters (art. 99.5), where the Congress has the leading role.
• The Congress indirectly limits this power through the motion of censure (arts. 113 and 115.2). While a motion of censure is being processed, the president cannot propose dissolution, so the Chamber retains the possibility of replacing the Government without elections.

3. Material and temporal limits

The presidential power to propose dissolution and, thus, the calling of elections, is subject to three major types of limits:

• Motion of censure in process: if a motion of censure has been presented and is being processed by Congress, the president cannot promote dissolution (art. 115.2). First, it must be resolved whether the Government maintains the confidence of the Chamber.
• Minimum interval between dissolutions: at least one year must elapse from the last dissolution at the president's initiative before a new one can be proposed (art. 115.3). This prevents abusive and recurrent use of early elections.
• States of constitutional crisis: while a state of alarm, exception, or siege is in force, the Cortes cannot be dissolved and elections cannot be held (art. 116.5). In fact, if an election date had already been set, the state of exception or siege suspends the electoral process. Therefore, the president lacks the possibility to initiate a new call during these periods.

4. Early dissolution vs. natural expiration of the mandate

It is key to distinguish between:

• Early dissolution (discretionary): occurs before the four-year mandate foreseen for the Congress (art. 68.4) and the Senate (art. 69.6) is completed. Here the president exercises a discretionary political power: he decides to bring forward the consultation to the citizens, within the limits explained.
• Natural expiration of the mandate (automatic dissolution): when four years have passed since the election, the Chambers are automatically dissolved. Elections must be called to be held between 30 and 60 days later, and the new Chambers meet within 25 days after the elections. In practice, the Government and its president still issue the call decree, but here there is no margin for political discretion: the dissolution is imposed by the Constitution.

5. Special case: investiture failure

When after an election no president is invested within two months from the first investiture vote, article 99.5 CE provides for the automatic dissolution of both Chambers and the calling of new elections. In this case:

The President of the Government no longer has a decisive role, because he has not been invested (or has ceased) and the Constitution assigns the King the dissolution and call with the countersignature of the President of the Congress. Here, the power to activate or not the elections is no longer with the Executive, but anchored in Parliament itself.

Overall, the powers of the President of the Government regarding general elections combine a great capacity for political initiative (to bring forward or not the elections) with a strong constitutional framework, which protects both the stability of the legislature and the central role of the Cortes Generales and the King in the system.

Based on parliamentary information from the 15th Legislature, and applying a strict criterion of "legislative initiatives on electoral system reform" (that is, organic laws that directly modify the Organic Law of the General Electoral Regime —LOREG— or other core elements of the electoral system), 2 legislative initiatives of this type have been presented in the Congress of Deputies during the current legislature.

These two initiatives are Government organic bills submitted to Congress, both focused on modifying the LOREG and on aspects directly linked to the functioning of the electoral system (configuration of candidacies, campaign debates, electoral polls, etc.). Below is a detail of which initiatives have been considered and why.

1. Organic Bill modifying the LOREG (121/000063)

The first identified initiative is the Organic Bill modifying Organic Law 5/1985, of June 19, on the General Electoral Regime, file number 121/000063, presented by the Government in the 15th Legislature and processed in the Congress of Deputies.

This initiative constitutes a direct reform of the LOREG. Among the most clearly electoral elements it addresses are:

• The modification of article 66 of the LOREG, strengthening the guarantee of political and social pluralism in publicly owned media during electoral periods.
• The introduction of the obligation to hold at least one electoral debate during the campaign on public media, regulating the participation of political parties and the consequences of unjustified absences, as assessed by the competent Electoral Board.
• The strengthening of transparency regarding electoral polls, completing the requirements for technical information and publication of microdata to guarantee objectivity, equality, and transparency.

As of the latest available information, the bill is under parliamentary processing, with successive extensions of the amendment deadline. Due to its nature, purpose, and content, it is unequivocally counted as a legislative initiative to reform the electoral system.

2. Organic Bill on parity representation and balanced presence (121/000001)

The second initiative is the Organic Bill on parity representation and balanced presence of women and men, file number 121/000001, also presented by the Government and processed both in Congress and Senate.

Although it is a broader law (parity in constitutional bodies, listed companies, public institutional sector, etc.), its Chapter I is expressly dedicated to modifying the LOREG to introduce structural changes in the rules for presenting candidacies and, therefore, in the functioning of the electoral system. Among others, it provides for:

• The modification of article 44 bis of the LOREG to require that lists for legislative elections (Congress, municipal, regional parliaments, European Parliament, and other representative bodies) have a parity composition of women and men, ordered alternately (the so-called "zipper lists").
• The extension of this model also to grouped lists for the Senate and the provision that the Electoral Board does not accept candidacies that do not meet these requirements, which directly affects the rules for configuring the electoral offer.
• The modification of other LOREG provisions (such as article 187.2 and article 206) to adapt the system of election and proclamation of officials to the new parity logic.

This bill was finally definitively approved in the 15th Legislature, and its content regarding electoral parity implies a substantive reform of the rules for forming candidacies and political representation, so it has also been included as an electoral system reform initiative.

3. Criterion used for the count

In the institutional search, other laws introducing technical or punctual modifications to the LOREG have been found (for example, related to judicial organization or very specific aspects of electoral administration), as well as an Organic Law 2/2026 that adapts the LOREG to a specific constitutional reform. However, to answer your question, a restrictive criterion has been applied:

• Only legislative initiatives processed as organic bills in Congress during the current legislature are counted.
• Only those whose main purpose is to reform the electoral system in the proper sense (electoral rules: composition of candidacies, campaign, debates, polls, principles of pluralism and transparency, etc.), not tangential LOREG reforms linked to other sectors.

Under this criterion, the number that most precisely answers your question is that, during the 15th Legislature, two legislative initiatives clearly identifiable as electoral system reforms have been presented in the Congress of Deputies.