Previous 15 / 115 Next

54 Sin embargo, en cumplimiento a lo ordenado mediante proveído dictado por el Magistrado Instructor el veintinueve de mayo pasado, dentro de los autos del juicio ciudadano SUP-JDC-314/2018, la autoridad responsable el cuatro de junio mediante oficio IEEPCO/SE/605/2018 remitió copia certificada de la resolución IEEPCO-RCG-04/2018 recaída al expediente CQDPCE/POS/005/2018 en donde se determina la cancelación definitiva de los registros cuestionados; documentales a las que se les atribuye valor probatorio pleno, con fundamento en los artículos 14, párrafo 4, inciso a), así como 16, párrafo 2, de la Ley de Medios 55 Por tanto, es evidente que si la litis de estos medios de impugnación está referida a determinar si las medidas cautelares, consistentes en la cancelación precautoria de las candidaturas, fueron apegadas a Derecho; es claro que los juicios referidos han quedado sin materia, toda vez que han sufrido un cambio de situación jurídica que impide que esté órgano jurisdiccional se pronuncie respecto de dichos planteamientos, al haber sido emitida la resolución de fondo que ordena su cancelación definitiva. 56 Ahora bien, es preciso señalar que si bien, la emisión de la resolución del procedimiento sancionador es una situación que, en principio, también podría afectar la materia sobre la que versan los juicios SUP-JDC-304/2018, SUP-JDC-314/2018 y SUP-JRC126/2018 (al estar referidos a un registro que fue cancelado) se considera que existe una litispendencia que impide su sobreseimiento, toda vez que la resolución que actualizaría un cambio de situación jurídica se encuentra pendiente de análisis por parte de este órgano jurisdiccional. 57 Lo anterior es así, toda vez que en caso de que los actores de los juicios ciudadanos y de revisión constitucional electoral, que impugnan la resolución relativa al procedimiento sancionador alcanzaran su pretensión, consistente en que subsista el registro cancelado, permanecería la materia sobre la que versan los juicios SUP-JDC-304/2018, SUP-JDC-314/2018 y SUP-JRC126/2018, por lo que es factible que esta Sala Superior se pronuncie sobre la misma. 58 Al respecto, esta Sala Superior ha sostenido que la litispendencia es una figura jurídica eminentemente de naturaleza jurisdiccional civil, que también resulta aplicable a casos de índole administrativa y, desde luego, a los asuntos electorales; que Create PDF in your applications with the Pdfcrowd HTML to PDF API PDFCROWD

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Mexico SUP JDC 304 2018

Judgment

Question Presented: The High Chamber of the confirmed the validity of the candidacy of two transgender people (muxes in the state of Oaxaca) to occupy public posts reserved for women and revoked the registration of 15 male candidates.

Alleged Acts: On April, 2018, the Institute for Elections and Citizen Participation of Oaxaca (IEEPCO) approved to register 19 people who were self-identified as muxes or transgender, as female candidates for legislative and municipal offices within the gender quotas for women . However, the muxe community of Oaxaca considered that, out of the 19 candidacies, 17 of them were fraudulent since they were only pretending to be transgender. Based on these arguments, members of the muxe community filed a complaint with IEEPCO, against these 17 candidacies. The IEEPCO analyzed the arguments of the claim and, after obtaining some evidence on the gender identity with which these 17 candidates conducted themselves socially, opted to cancel the registration, considering that there were irregularities and that, in its opinion, they were men who had self-identified as transgender women .

Summary: In the ruling SUP-JDC-304/2018 and accumulated dated June 21, 2018, the High Chamber defined two determinant issues: the requirements that the State can demand to any person in order to: 1) prove their gender identity and 2) to access to gender quotas in electoral matters and the measures that the authorities can (and should) adopt to verify the gender identity of a person in order to avoid the fraudulent use of gender quotas. The High Chamber ruled that it is enough to inform the respective authority the gender self-identification with a manifestation that clearly indicates the intent of the person in question. They reached this conclusion for two reasons: due to the application of the principle of progressiveness and to provide the principle of parity or substantive equality a useful and non-discriminatory effect. First, the High Chamber considered that, in accordance with the provisions of articles 1st; 4th; 35th, section II; and, 41th, fourth paragraph of the Constitution, all authorities in Mexico, within the scope of their authority, have the obligation to protect and guarantee human rights, which include legal gender equality, the right to stand for election, and the prohibition of the discrimination of a person due to their gender.

Conclusion: The Electoral Tribunal realized that, as the muxe community had stated, 15 of those 17 candidates had tried to register first as men, but not getting the registration because the male gender quota was already covered, they decided to self-identify as transgender women. For this reason, the High Chamber considered that these 15 applications were contradictory with the second manifestation of self-identification arising from the request made by the IEEPCO. Therefore, independently of the express manifestation of these 15 people self-identifying to the transsexual gender, the High Chamber ordered the cancellation of the registration of these candidacies and ordered to replace them with 15 women.

Legal Issue(s)

Candidate Registration
Gender
Quotas

Region: Americas

Country: Mexico

Language of Decision

Spanish

Court: Electoral Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Jun 21, 2018

Geolocation

Latitude: 19.433186441267804

Longitude: -99.13401777615888

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Mexico- SUP-JDC-304-2018.pdf
Spanish
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Mexico SUP JDC 304 2018

Primary Documents

Notifications