Judges and Judges for Democracy and the Progressive Union of Prosecutors have expressed this Saturday their "deep concern" regarding the decision of the Supreme Court to provisionally suspend the right to vote for those who have obtained Spanish nationality under the provision of the Democratic Memory Law, known as the 'grandchildren's law', a measure they consider disproportionate as it directly affects a fundamental right.
In a joint statement, both associations show their institutional respect towards the high court, but adhere to the criterion defended by the magistrate María Alicia Millán Herrandis in the dissenting vote with the majority ruling of the Chamber.
They emphasize that the provisional measures agreed upon by the Supreme Court, at the request of Vox and Iustitia Europa, extend their electoral effects over the instruction issued in 2022 by the Ministry of Justice to apply the 'grandchildren's law', a text that, they remind, has not been challenged "directly or indirectly" in this procedure.
Both organizations also warn that the Supreme Court is depriving the constitutional right to vote from people who "are Spanish by virtue of firm acts, issued by the competent bodies in accordance with current regulations" and that it does so without the affected group "having been part of the process and without an individualized examination of their situation having been carried out".
Difference in treatment between Spaniards
According to the resolution, these people will not be able to vote until the Supreme Court issues a ruling, unless they prove to be descendants of exiles for political reasons. In the opinion of progressive judges and prosecutors, this exception "depends on a certification" that the interested parties "cannot request", which causes "a difference in treatment between Spanish people of origin depending on the route by which they accessed nationality, a circumstance that requires special caution from the perspective of the principle of equality".
The central objection of the associations focuses on the "proportionality" of the decision, given that it affects "the exercise of fundamental rights". They remind that, while "the risk" that the Supreme Court perceives "projects onto future electoral processes that have not yet been called", the "harm caused by the suspension is, on the other hand, immediate and concrete".
"When a precautionary measure limits fundamental rights of a very large number of people, it is necessary that the weighting is carried out with particularly intense rigor," they emphasize in their statement.
They also stress that the existence of conflicting criteria, even within the JEC itself, evidences a "legitimate interpretative controversy" that, in their opinion, must be "resolved in the judgment of the substance, with full contradiction and with all guarantees."
Not making partisanship with the census
In this scenario, they trust that the procedure, which has preferential processing, "is resolved as quickly as possible and, in any case, before any electoral process can be called," as the Government has also demanded.
They also demand that the doubts about the compliance with the law of the instruction from the Ministry of Justice be channeled through the established mechanisms and require the involved administrations to provide "clear and accessible information" to the people affected by the suspension of the vote, and that the debate be addressed "calmly," avoiding turning "the electoral census or the affected people into an object of partisan confrontation."
"Judges and Judges for Democracy and the Progressive Union of Prosecutors reaffirm their commitment to the integrity of electoral processes and, with equal firmness, to the effective guarantee of the right to vote of all people who hold Spanish nationality," concludes the note.