ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL DISCOUNTS "NULLIFICATION" RUMORS

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 MEXICO 003422

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/21/2016
TAGS: PGOV MX
SUBJECT: ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL DISCOUNTS "NULLIFICATION" RUMORS


Classified By: Acting DCM Leslie A Bassett for reasons 1.4 (B,D)


1. (C) Summary: While Mexican media have in recent days
lingered on the possibility the Electoral Tribunal (TEPJF)
might annul the 2006 presidential voting, six of the seven
members of the TEPJF assured us such a decision was virtually
impossible. In a meeting June 20 TEPJF President Leonel
Castillo and five of his colleagues reviewed the most famous
instance in which the Tribunal annulled an election -- the
2000 Tabasco gubernatorial vote -- and stressed that current
conditions were not comparable. The TEPJF magistrates
clearly expect to receive a string of legal complaints
ranging from ballot box counts to the conduct of the overall
process -- and are just as clearly poised to deal with them
promptly. End Summary

Tabasco in 2000


2. (C) A series of recent press reports have dwelled on the
2000 Tabasco precedent set by the TEPJF when it annulled
gubernatorial elections, prompting some analysts to speculate
that the criteria applied in 2000 could be applied as well to
the upcoming presidential election. Castillo and his
colleagues quickly dismissed the comparisons, noting first
that the electoral law did not specify criteria for annulling
a presidential election. Second, the ruling in Tabasco
relied on both federal and state law. It was based on
findings of systemic, well-documented violations by the
electoral board, the media, the state government (led by
current PRI presidential candidate Roberto Madrazo),and
voting station coordinators. The flagrant violations, the
failure of electoral institutions to correct them, and the
slim margin of (PRI) victory prompted the justices to
effectively create the concept of "abstract nullification,"
to require a re-vote. While none of the violations taken
alone was sufficient to annul the election, magistrates
explained, the sum of the violations, the level of proof
presented, and the close outcome together merited a re-vote.
The magistrates acknowledged that since 2000 the losing party
in many subsequent local, state and federal elections has
tried to have "abstract nullification" applied again, but in
few instances did the same circumstances pertain.

Mexico in 2006


3. (C) Certainly they would not appear to pertain now,
Castillo commented, although the Tribunal could make no final
decision until a case was presented and the evidence
evaluated. Castillo noted that the Federal Electoral
Institute (IFE) had monitored the campaign process closely,
had responded promptly to party complaints about everything
from promotional materials to possible compromise of the
quick count sites. IFE's logistical organization of the vote
appeared impeccable and even-handed. The TEPJF had sought to
"vaccinate" itself against a call for nullification by, for
example, ruling that the National Action Party (PAN) had to
withdraw attack ads targeting Democratic Revolution Party
(PRD) candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO). The
TEPJF fully expected to receive an argument for "abstract
nullification" from one or more parties, depending on the
outcome. They also expected to adjudicate a large number of
other complaints for both the congressional and presidential
vote, primarily at the booth or district level.

Timely Decisions


4. (C) The magistrates were also quick to stress that they
understood the political costs of uncertainty and would move
quickly through the complaints they expect to receive.
Parties have until July 9 to file at the district level
complaints about the conduct of the voting process or the
vote count. If the complaints cannot be resolved at the
district level, they must be immediately transferred to the
TEPJF. By July 15 the TEPJF must have in hand all the
complaints it will consider. By August 28 the law requires
the TEPJF to have resolved all issues related to the
congressional vote and ratify the winners. By September 2
the TEPJF must, by law, ratify the presidential victor.
However, decisions on individual complaints -- and possibly
on nullification requests -- could be made and announced much
sooner. Moreover, Castillo noted that in 2000 the same TEPJF
ratified the presidential election by August 2, a month ahead
of schedule. The magistrates confirmed that their intent is
to ratify the election results as quickly as possible.


5. (C) Comment: The six magistrates were clearly on the
same wavelength regarding "abstract nullification" and eager
to reassure us of the virtual impossibility that the
presidential election could be annulled. They made clear
that despite the parties' shrill complaints about President
Fox and pot shots at IFE, from their perspective the election
process is not fundamentally flawed. Six of the seven
magistrates on the court were present during 2000, and know

MEXICO 00003422 002 OF 002


what they are in for. All of those six will complete their
terms in October 2006, with only one member carrying on to
the next Tribunal.


Visit Mexico City's Classified Web Site at
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/mexicocity

GARZA