The conservative sector of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) was divided this Thursday in the plenary session in which the incorporation of telematic voting for the election of members of the government chambers of the Supreme Court, the National Court and the National Court were debated. the 17 Superior Courts of Justice. The CGPJ had a plan on the table to reform the regulations that regulate these elections and incorporate telematic voting, a measure that three of the four main associations of judges have demanded (Francisco de Vitoria, Judges and Judges for Democracy and the Independent Judicial Forum ), but which is opposed by the majority Professional Association of the Judiciary (APM), which holds the majority of positions in the governing rooms of the main courts. These chambers have spoken out in recent weeks against the incorporation of telematic voting and part of the conservative bloc of the CGPJ has mobilized to try to stop the reform proposal that was being brought to the plenary session. Finally, the telematic vote has gone ahead by 10 votes to 5, after several members proposed by the PP joined the position defended by the progressives.
The incorporation of telematic voting has opened a new source of tension in the CGPJ, although this time it has resulted in a different result than usual. The debate that exists in the judicial career about the incorporation of this type of voting, with which the minority associations intend to make the elections more “transparent” has been transferred to the group of members of the conservative sector who usually function as a compact block and majority capable of imposing its decisions within the body. The progressives, in favor of the regulation of telematic voting, feared that this time the same thing would happen again and that the councilors proposed by the PP would overthrow the reform of the regulation that regulates voting in the government rooms, despite the fact that this change counts. with the endorsement of the technical cabinet of the Council.
What the plenary session voted on is the validation of the agreement adopted by the Permanent Commission on November 2 – in which a report from the technical cabinet of the CGPJ was approved in favor of introducing virtual voting – and continuing with the processing of the regulatory modification. The alternate president, Vicente Guilarte, voted in favor; the progressive members Roser Bach, Mar Cabrejas, Álvaro Cuesta, Clara Martínez de Careaga, Enrique Lucas – who has announced the formulation of a concurrent vote -; and the conservatives Juan Manuel Fernández, Nuria Díaz, Juan Martínez Moya and Gerardo Martínez Tristán. The councilors José Antonio Ballestero, Ángeles Carmona, Carmen Llombart, José María Macías and Wenceslao Olea have voted against. Macías has announced a private vote to which Carmona will adhere, and Olea will formulate another to which Llombart will join. The member Pilar Sepúlveda has not participated in the plenary session due to illness.
The incorporation of telematic voting is a victory for three judicial associations that demanded it from the CGPJ and that last Monday sent a joint letter to the Council in which they showed their “concern” that it might not go ahead. In the letter, the three judicial groups explained that, until now, the elections to the government chambers have always been carried out by mail, but that “on many occasions” the documentation to vote by mail does not arrive in time at the judicial headquarters. . “With the consequent damage to the right to vote.” The associations argue that telematic voting “gives greater guarantees” than the system currently used by many judges to vote, which is the delegation of the vote to another colleague. “The method of the colleague moving with the envelopes of votes from other colleagues does not guarantee that the vote is anonymous and secret at the time of preparation of the envelope, nor at the time of its transport and deposit in the ballot box. On the other hand, telematic voting does ensure anonymity and with this method the voter can verify that the vote has been received without modification by the electoral board,” the associations noted.
The current formula, according to the minority associations, benefits the majority APM, which has more members, many of them in government positions, and a well-oiled machinery to collect delegated votes. This association, in a statement sent this Tuesday to the entire race, maintains that the introduction of telematic voting “is positive”, but assures that today “there is no legal coverage” to regulate it. With these same arguments, the government chambers of the main courts, including the Supreme Court, in which there is a majority of elected members of the APM, have opposed virtual voting.
The governing chambers are the collegiate bodies that make the main organizational and administrative decisions of the courts, from reporting on the service commissions that determine appointments, to proposing inspections or writing the reports based on which the creation of new ones is decided. organs. The number of judges that comprise it varies depending on the court, but all are composed of ex officio members (including the president and the presidents of the chamber) and an equal number of magistrates or judges elected by their colleagues after an electoral process that takes place. It is celebrated every five years and to which independent candidates or proposals by judicial associations can be submitted.
What affects the most is what happens closest. So you don't miss anything, subscribe.
Subscribe
In the last elections, held in November 2019, the APM (1,413 members) obtained 61 of the 117 positions up for grabs (52.1% of the total). In the Supreme Court, he achieved three out of five – one went to the progressive Judges and Judges for Democracy (JJpD, 434 members) and another to a non-member. In the National Court, he obtained the three positions that were chosen. It also swept the Government Chambers of the TSJ with the greatest number of judges: Valencian Community (six out of six); Galicia (seven out of seven), Castilla-La Mancha (eight out of eight); Basque Country (six APM; one JJpD); Andalusia (14 APM; 1 Francisco de Vitoria Judicial Association, AJFV, with 885 members); Madrid (three APM; one AJFV/Independent Judicial Forum) and Catalonia (six APM; one JJpD).
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_
#division #conservative #bloc #CGPJ #leads #approval #telematic #voting #government #rooms #courts