The Supreme Court notified this Thursday the arguments why last Tuesday it agreed to suspend the right to vote of those who had obtained Spanish nationality thanks to the facilities of the grandchildren law. "There is a risk of alteration of the electoral roll through an exceptional increase in the number of new registrations in the Electoral Roll of Absent Residents," state the documents that estimate the precautionary measure claimed by Iustitia Europa and Vox.
The Chamber considers that "the extraordinary increase" in the number of registered voters, together with the fact that this number "is constantly increasing, with figures of the extraordinary magnitude exposed", are circumstances that must be assessed, "since they can affect the transparency of the electoral process and the confidence of citizens in its results, in addition to generating a well-founded circumstance of uncertainty about the electoral result."
The magistrates review the requirements that must be met to adopt a precautionary suspension while the merits of the appeals are resolved. They allege that, if this were not done, an irreversible effect would be produced that would render a ruling upholding the resources useless. "The appellant alleges, rightly, that the electoral roll is permanent and is updated every month," he indicates, adding that, in addition, "new registrations continue to be processed and resolved" in Cera.
Remember that the appellants have provided figures that neither the State Attorney's Office nor the Central Electoral Board (JEC) have objected to. As of July 1, 2026, there were 2,736,522 voters registered in Cera, compared to 2,328,260 in the 2023 general elections. "This is, therefore, a total of 408,262 more voters, of which electoral districts such as Madrid, with 115,572 more voters or Barcelona, with 43,439 more voters, reveal an increase exceptional number of voters registered in CERA".
Such an increase "had not occurred before" the Democratic Memory Law and, above all, the interpretation of the Ministry of Justice that the rule meant that everyone who left Spain between 1936 and 1955 should be considered exiled. Therefore, their children and grandchildren could apply for Spanish nationality, which entails the right to vote.
Another legal requirement to adopt the precautionary measure is that there is the so-called appearance of good law, that is, that the allegations are presented as solid. It is also fulfilled, says the Court. He affirms that the instruction of the Ministry of Justice that presumed that everyone who left Spain was an exile "does not seem to adjust to the content of the legal norm that it interprets."
He adds that four members of the Central Electoral Board cast a dissenting vote in which they supported the suspension of the right to vote that the Supreme Court has now adopted. Finally, the majority of the JEC considered that it did not have powers to do so and that decision is the one appealed to the Supreme Court by Iustitia and Vox.
In its order, the High Court indicates that, when analyzing the case, it must go beyond that specific resolution of the JEC. He believes that he should also analyze the legality of the lax interpretation of the Democratic Memory Law made by the General Directorate of Legal Security and Public Faith, then directed by Sofía Puente, sister of the Minister of Transportation.
The decision to suspend the right to vote has been adopted by five of the six judges of the Fourth Contentious-Administrative Section. A judge has issued a dissenting vote against the suspension.
