Judicial election valid despite "blemishes," declares INE

The INE validated the Supreme Court election, but annulled 818 polling stations due to irregularities such as the widespread use of accordions. Learn about the controversial decision that divides the electoral arbiter and casts doubt on the process.

The National Electoral Institute (INE) declared the validity of the Supreme Court election and issued majority certificates to the winners. The decision came amidst fierce controversy, confirming the annulment of 818 polling stations due to documented irregularities, primarily the use of "accordions."

In a session marked by tension and debate, the General Council of the National Electoral Institute (INE) formally validated the results of the historic first popular election of Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) ministers. However, the declaration of validity is overshadowed by the confirmation that the institute itself annulled the vote in 818 polling stations due to "various irregularities" that, according to dissident councilors, "tainted" the contest.

The main irregularity at the center of controversy is the documented and widespread use of "accordions" or "cheat sheets" at polling stations. These documents, distributed in a coordinated manner, contained the names of the candidates to be favored, in a clear attempt to steer the vote.

The magnitude of the problem was exposed by critical councilors during the session. One of the most striking pieces of data revealed that in 61% of the cases analyzed, the winning candidates matched the names promoted on the accordions. This correlation suggests an effective and large-scale voter-inducing operation that goes beyond isolated incidents and points to a coordinated strategy.

"Even with clear evidence of irregularities, the elections can be considered valid, and there are no consequences for this conduct, which could lead to future elections not only being repeated but multiplying." – Councilor Martín Faz Mora, during the INE session.

The decision to validate the election was not unanimous and exposed a deep philosophical divide within the country's highest electoral body.

* The critical stance: A group of councilors argued that validating the election despite clear evidence of anti-democratic practices set a dangerous precedent. They maintained that the integrity of the process was compromised and that ignoring fraud, even in a minority of polling stations, eroded confidence in the electoral authority.

* The majority position: On the other hand, INE president Guadalupe Taddei defended the validation, arguing that the irregularities, although serious, represented less than 1% of the more than 83,000 polling stations installed. She considered that annulling the entire process due to these incidents would be an "extreme and regrettable" measure that would ignore the will of the vast majority of voters.

This clash of views reflects a fundamental dilemma: should procedural purity prevail, even if this entails a crisis of governability, or should institutional continuity be ensured, even at the cost of tolerating certain "stains" in the process?

While the debate continues, the elected justices have already received their majority certificates. In a deeply symbolic act, Justice-elect Hugo Aguilar Ortiz, a native of an Indigenous community, delivered a speech in the Mixtec language. In it, he called for a "vote of confidence" in the new Supreme Court and pledged to eradicate corruption, nepotism, and discrimination from the judiciary.

This gesture seeks to build a narrative of renewal and legitimacy from day one, an effort that will be crucial for a Court born under the shadow of a contested election.