The Supreme Court maintains the suspension of voting for those who achieved nationality with the 'grandchildren law'

The Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court has rejected the appeal for reconsideration by the State Attorney's Office against the suspension of the right to vote of residents abroad who had obtained nationality thanks to the law on grandchildren. The decision has the private vote of a magistrate of the six members of the Fourth Section.

The Government, through the Legal Profession, had alleged that the imminence of 29-N made the execution of the precautionary measure adopted on September 10 by the High Court almost impossible in practice. The Prosecutor's Office also demanded to revoke the suspension, highlighting that the right to vote should prevail in the interests in conflict. Both Iustitia Europa and Vox, for their part, had requested last Monday, the same day of the early elections, that the TS maintain its decision.

After hearing the news, Government sources have indicated that the State Attorney's Office will study whether the precautionary decision is considered final and, therefore, can appeal it to the Constitutional Court, or whether this possibility only corresponds to those directly affected by the suspension. "It seems that the right to vote is not so relevant for some," add the same government sources.

The resolution, of 45 pages and dated this same October 12, concludes by indicating that the suspension of registration in the Electoral Census of Absent Residents (Cera) of those who had obtained nationality but were still pending this process is maintained. Those already registered have their right to vote suspended.

The court specifies that those who obtain a certification from the consulates that they acquired nationality, documenting that they are descendants of exiles "for political, ideological reasons or reasons of belief or sexual identity orientation", will be able to vote, as provided for by the Democratic Memory Law. The suspension of voting is aimed at those who resorted to the presumption established by the Ministry of Justice that everyone who left Spain between July 18, 1936 and December 31, 1955.

The five magistrates who signed the decision consider that the lack of information on the part of the Government - through the Legal Profession - on how the precautionary measure was being executed makes it necessary to maintain the initial decision. "There has been a complete failure to inform this Chamber of the level of compliance with the order received. The allegations presented by the State Attorney and the attached reports do not provide any data that would allow, at least, approximate knowledge of the situation on the date of approval of this order."

"The reasons that led this Chamber to adopt such an exceptional measure persist [...] due to the lack of absolute proof of compliance, even approximately the state of the matter," adds the court, which concludes with a reproach to the State Attorney's Office: "The material impossibility of executing a court order cannot be alleged when the cause of non-compliance lies in the Administration itself responsible for complying with it."