Cristina Kirchner's vote: the electoral roll as a liberated zone
Shortly after the judicial recess began, the decision by the presiding judge of the Federal Court of Río Grande, Mariel Borruto, to keep Cristina Kirchner on the electoral roll in Santa Cruz rekindled a legal controversy of profound institutional significance. The former president, who was sentenced to six years in prison for serious corruption in the Vialidad case and barred from holding public office for life, has been authorized – at least provisionally – to vote in the legislative elections next October The measure was appealed by the federal prosecutor of Río Gallegos , Julio Zárate , and will be finally resolved by the National Electoral Chamber .
Beyond the substantive issue, which has strong precedents contrary to the first instance ruling, The context chosen for this statement is surprising. The resolution was signed in haste, before the winter judicial recess and without a request, which limits the possibilities of immediate review and, in fact, politicizes a debate that demands, above all, serenity and regulatory rigor That timing doesn't seem innocent. Why so close to the point of complete judicial inactivity, and when the conviction has been upheld by the Supreme Court of Justice ?
From a strictly legal perspective, the background is clear. Both the National Electoral Chamber and the acting Attorney General of the Nation, Eduardo Casal , have expressed their views on the matter on other occasions. By imposing the ruling that condemned her to perpetual disqualification from holding public office, this aspect cannot be arbitrarily separated from the active exercise of political rights. A strong democracy is not built by weakening its own mechanisms of institutional oversight.
Judge Borruto relies on precedents that consider the automatic deprivation of the right to vote unconstitutional, such as the rulings in " Zelaya " and " National Penitentiary Prosecutor's Office ." However, these precedents They referred to cases in which the conviction did not involve crimes against public administration nor did it expressly contemplate the disqualification that was applied to Cristina Kirchner. In this context, the jurisprudence has been emphatic: someone who has committed a minor offense cannot be treated the same as someone who has defrauded the State from the very echelons of power.
Along these lines, the National Electoral Chamber itself has warned that it is reasonable to apply disqualification in cases of Corruption, organized crime, embezzlement of public funds and fraud against the State To pretend that a conviction for fraudulent acts of government does not affect the ability to exercise political rights is to ignore the principle of suitability for civic exercise, enshrined in our national Constitution.
Aside from the regulatory debate, there's one inescapable fact: Cristina Kirchner is serving her sentence under house arrest in Buenos Aires. The logistics of allowing her to vote in Santa Cruz it borders on the absurd Even if the transfer were possible, the problem is conceptual. The issue at hand is not whether it can be done physically or geographically, but rather whether it should be allowed to vote from the perspective of the rule of law.
Any change in the structure of citizens' rights and duties must be channeled through Congress If the current law is inadequate or excessive, it must be amended by a law supported by the required majority of legislators in each case. What is unacceptable is that this path be circumvented by judicial pronouncements that, instead of interpreting the law, They seem to be intended to replace it .
The decision in Río Gallegos is not an isolated failure. Everything seems to indicate that It is a more political than legal gesture And, like any gesture that enforces the letter of the law, it jeopardizes public confidence in the fairness of institutions.
Judicial convictions are not open to debate or reversible through lax interpretations. They are the result of a constitutional process that deserves to be respected by all, especially by those who, as judges, have the duty to ensure its compliance.
The National Electoral Chamber now has the opportunity—and the responsibility—to correct this deviation. Not to limit rights thoughtlessly, but to affirm the essential principle that No one, no matter how high their position in power, is above the law. .
lanacion
