Global Courant
The Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) has before it a test of its management and decision-making capacity, with implications that reach credibility and citizen trust. These are isolated but important cases of challenges against certain results in mayoral elections, such as those of the capital city and Chinautla, in which legal actions are requested for the annulment of different moments of the process.
Regarding the Municipality of Guatemala, where the difference is just over 500 votes between the candidates of the Unionist Party and Creo, the Electoral Board of the Central District, through a press release issued yesterday, announced that the process of adjudication of positions for said edile corporation, as a result of an annulment appeal filed by Creo, and similar actions of other parties, which can only be known and resolved by the plenary session of magistrates. However, the TSE responded that it does not correspond to it.
In the case of voting in the department of Guatemala, 15 parties abandoned the hearing to review the records, held on Monday, which they assure that they will present legal appeals against the Departmental Electoral Board of Guatemala to order a review, record per minutes, due to alleged inconsistencies detected. For its part, the Court also issued a statement yesterday in which it declares that it has no jurisdiction and that it is the sole responsibility of the polling stations. In any case, if there is no anomaly and the processes were carried out in full adherence to the historical mechanisms of the TSE, there should be no problem in auditing the process.
In 2019 there was a similar situation due to questions about the digital system used by the previous TSE, which days before the elections had presented a computer bug called “error 21”, which was corrected. At that time, the plenary decided, four days after the first round, to recount all the tally sheets to avoid the electoral violence that also took place that year, which caused the death of one person in riots and injured police officers.
This is a complicated decision for the Court, because it does not want to promote similar claims from other communes in which there are always obvious discontents of those who were defeated and who seek to impose themselves by means beyond the popular will. Therefore, it is up to the TSE to grant or deny remedies based on the norm and previous resolutions.
Until yesterday there had been 24 incidents of violence, which began the day after the voting, in the departments of Guatemala, Escuintla, Retalhuleu, Alta Verapaz, San Marcos, Baja Verapaz and Jutiapa. If the TSE decides to grant a request for annulment or recount, in any case it must do so only if there are pertinent and concrete indications, not because of harangues, hostility or pressures that respond to personal or partisan interests. In an attempt to paraphrase the words of the TSE itself in its press release, “the purity and confidence of the electoral process” rests on all the actors, and this includes the full magistrates. That is why the final decision must be at the Court level, as a sample of the gallantry and legality that the TSE itself asks citizens to accept the electoral results.
