The Popular Party has opposed in the Constitutional Court the assessment of the appeal in which the PSOE asks that the null votes of 23-J in Madrid be reviewed, with the hope of recovering a seat that it finally lost with votes from abroad.
In its opposition brief, the party considers that the socialist petition “calls into question the correct functioning of the electoral system as a whole” and considering its appeal “would mean modifying the electoral system through the back door.”
The PSOE relies on the fact that it was only 1,340 votes away from obtaining its eleventh seat for Madrid, which ended up being the sixteenth for the PP. This small difference in votes alone justifies, in the opinion of the PSOE, the counting of the 30,241 null votes that there were in the Community of Madrid.
The PP begins by highlighting that the “unusual request” of the PSOE was already rejected “on five occasions” by the Madrid Electoral Board, by the Central Electoral Board and by the Supreme Court. In all of them it was indicated that the small difference in votes is not in itself sufficient reason for a recount. It is necessary, according to the Constitutional doctrine, to provide some indication of irregularity in the count, something that has not happened.
The Popular Party affirms that the socialist claim “calls into question the correct functioning of the electoral system as a whole, including not only the Provincial and Central Electoral Boards, made up of Magistrates and jurists of recognized prestige, but also the work of more than 21,000 citizens in Madrid who have contributed to the functioning of the electoral system by integrating the polling stations, and even the work of their own representatives and auditors whose work they simply despise.”
He states that this is “an artificial, opportunistic and advantageous constitutional debate initiated by someone who lost the elections and only after knowing that the recount was going badly for him.” “There is no political concern, there is no social concern, there is no general political significance that can be deduced from this appeal,” he adds.
The document, in addition to questioning the legal argument, describes as false the calculations with which the PSOE wants to present the final result as very close and, therefore, susceptible to change with a review of the null vote.
He affirms that the starting point of the PSOE is “absolutely fallacious”, because he alleges that if only 4% of the invalid votes were validated in favor of the PSOE, the electoral result would be altered. “This is absolutely false information. As the Provincial Electoral Board of Madrid has said, the instant party’s claim would only have a minimal chance of success if exclusively null votes from its candidacy were reviewed and validated, marginalizing those of the other parties, which which would be totally inappropriate.'”
The PP takes advantage of the resource to launch some criticisms about the vote not strictly linked to the recount claimed. After criticizing that the “material truth” of the electoral result “did not worry him at all at the beginning of the scrutiny, but two days later, only when the count began to go badly,” he adds that the PSOE “has cared little about that truth” the will of all the voters who have not been able to cast their vote by the chosen date, that of the people who have not been able to come to Madrid due to the poor functioning of public services, that of the voters who have not been able to complete their vote by mail”.
As it is an electoral matter that has an accelerated process, the Constitutional Court plans to address the matter this Tuesday. The Supreme Prosecutor’s Office supported the PSOE in its claim, although the Constitutional Prosecutor’s Office has not yet ruled – it does not have to coincide with that of the Supreme – on the latest socialist cartridge between the TC.
Obtaining one more seat for the PSOE would facilitate the investiture for Pedro Sánchez, since it would reduce the importance of the affirmative vote of Junts.
