Concluding inequality in the judicial elections; Urgent for a good examination

Few of the spread channels to know the nominations, excessive information for analysis, lack of equality between candidates, insufficient spaces for socialization of nominations through almost the bases restrictions to comply with, violations of the rules by candidates and candidates who use work teams, support organizations, buy networks in networks, in addition to the load in the fever.

Therefore, the INE court and the electoral court, so that, in the first case, it launched a better examination and monitoring that slows down inequality in the competition, and the second, to punish the “bad practices” that affect electoral integrity, as well as take clear definitions in their rulings.

In the tenth monitoring report, Oej, responsible for the late release of the rules as the main promoter of inequality, as on the eve of the start of the campaigns, I would bring Ine fears of nominations about what he could or cannot do, but there are many situations that were not defined “specifically.”

In addition, the Observatory warned of shortcomings in regulations and applying standards that govern this electoral process, which led to great obstacles to promoting nominations.

It has been observed that the rulings that were implemented were restricted and unclear.

He explained that at the present time, nominations can only campaigns through social networks, without advertising instructions, and with the materials printed on recyclable paper, which limited their ability to publish them and were affected by the access of citizens to the main information.

“The lack of clear rules from the beginning and the restrictions stopped the general deliberations about the characteristics of the candidates. In addition, confusion in the published menus and voting mechanics made it difficult for citizens to know those who aspire to the judiciary.”

Likewise, it was convicted that the last ruling that requires at least 50 % of the nominations to the same position in any forum or event, according to equivalence standards, made practically the efforts of universities and civil organizations to enhance the debate and enlightened vote.

Worry

The Observatory, which consists of electoral, practical, opposition and Mexico organizations, also pointed out its concern about violating the rules through some nominations, including prohibited collective actions, the use of excessive resources, and the purchase of spaces in social networks.

“It is worrying that those who aspire to apply laws do not know or respect the rules that govern their campaigns,” he stressed.

In the Electoral Court, the Observatory criticized the lack of clear standards by TEPJF because it issued contradictory decisions regarding the nature of the elections, which are pushed for legal uncertainty and the property rights of the operation are complicated, so that TePjf was urged to create uniform standards that provide certainty.

For example, on the issue of control, the standards of the presidential and legislative elections were held, without taking into account the differences in terms of resources, but it was said that it is different elections, the general official of the three authorities of the Union can spread the judicial elections.

Data

monitoring

• In the face of the committee, the Judicial Electoral Observatory reiterated its commitment to continuing to monitor the elections, from the campaign to resource control.

“We offer an example of democracy”

Given the criticism of the judicial choice on June 1, President Claudia Shinbom called on citizens to vote on that unprecedented electoral day in the country’s history.

From Campeche, he insisted that with the judicial elections, the approach that is in Mexico is an authoritarian system, because citizens will now decide to form the three powers of the Union.

“We also offer an example of the world in democracy, because our opponents say we are very authoritarian. How will we be authoritarian if we invite people to participate?

“The authoritarian means that the president decided everything and not, here is the opposite, here people decide, people lead in our country, and they will also send now to say who want their ministers, judges and judges. His judges. This is what is called democracy.”

Arturo Paramo