Previous 33 / 115 Next

130 Aducen que la resolución es violatoria de derechos humanos, así como de derechos político-electorales al determinar la cancelación definitiva de sus candidaturas sin que hubiere quedado demostrada contravención alguna a preceptos constitucionales o legales y, en particular, al artículo 16 de los Lineamientos, lo cual cobra especial relevancia porque cumplieron con todos los requisitos legales y constitucionales para la procedencia de su registro como candidatos. 131 Consideran que fue falso que se autoadscribieran como mujeres con motivo de un requerimiento hecho por la autoridad, porque en el caso de Santos Cruz Martínez y Yair Hernández Quiroz, aducen que notificaron al partido desde el inicio del proceso de registro tal condición, por lo que estiman que se trata de una manifestación auténtica, legítima y espontánea, que cumplía con los extremos establecidos por el artículo 16 de los multicitados lineamientos y que sólo exigía la autoadscripción, por lo que si los Lineamientos no exigían una autoadscripción calificada, la autoridad electoral se encontraba impedida para solicitarla como requisito, al momento del registro. 132 Asimismo, señalan que la actuación de la responsable fue indebida, en razón de la obligación contenida en el artículo 1 constitucional por la cual debe promover, respetar, proteger y garantizar los derechos humanos de conformidad con los principios de universalidad, interdependencia, indivisibilidad, progresividad y pro persona, evitando toda clase de discriminación por motivos de género o preferencias sexuales. De manera particular, Alfredo Vicente Ojeda Serrano, Alejandro Guzmán Liborio señalan que resulta necesario verificar la regularidad constitucional de los supuestos normativos aplicados por la responsable, toda vez que consideran que no supera las condiciones de legitimidad, idoneidad, necesidad y proporcionalidad. 133 Lo anterior, porque la identidad de género hace referencia a una vivencia interna que una persona tiene de su propio género, el cual puede corresponder o no con aquel que le fue asignado legalmente al nacer; además de que la responsable pasó por alto que pueden existir casos de autoadscripción legítima y auténtica como mujeres, respecto de personas que no desean que dicha condición trascienda del ámbito de su vida privada. 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