Previous 11 / 115 Next

b. Por una persona ajena al proceso, que no tenga el carácter de parte en el litigio, y c. Tenga únicamente la finalidad o intención de aumentar el conocimiento del juzgador mediante razonamientos o información científica y jurídica (nacional e internacional) pertinente para resolver la cuestión planteada. 36 En el caso, se advierte que Amaranta Gómez Regalado, presenta un escrito formulando diversas consideraciones que buscan reforzar los argumentos planteados por la actora en el juicio SUP-JDC-304/2018 en relación con el registro indebido de un candidato que se autoadscribió como mujer. Sin embargo, de las constancias que obran agregadas en autos, se advierte que dicha persona también fue una de las promoventes del escrito de denuncia por el cual solicitan al Instituto Local el inicio de un procedimiento sancionador, por el posible fraude a la ley derivado de la presunta usurpación de la identidad trans con el fin de evadir la obligación de candidatos, partidos y coaliciones de observar el principio de paridad de género en la postulación de candidaturas a concejalías en diversos ayuntamientos de la entidad. 37 En este sentido, se advierte que no se cumple con una de las condiciones establecidas por la jurisprudencia de esta Sala Superior para admitir el escrito de amigo de la corte, toda vez que no fue presentado por alguien ajeno a los intereses de la controversia sino que, por el contrario tiene interés en acreditar ante este órgano jurisdiccional que el registro del candidato a primer concejal en el ayuntamiento de San Juan Cacahuatepec, Oaxaca fue hecho en contravención a la normativa local, al considerar que se actualizó un fraude a la ley. 38 En ese orden de ideas, se considera que dicho escrito no reúne las características de “amigo del tribunal”, pues una de las características elementales para admitir esta figura, que busca aportar y ayudar a resolver una controversia, es que sea presentada por una persona física o jurídica ajena a los intereses de las partes del conflicto, de ahí que sea improcedente la admisión y análisis del escrito presentado. Con independencia de lo anterior, el presente asunto se resolverá bajo los principios que conforme a Derecho correspondan. CUARTO. Terceros interesados. 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