Previous 26 / 36 Next

algún historial previo con el elector, ya fuera porque es su médico habitual o es el médico que atiende al elector específicamente en cuanto a la condición o enfermedad que le causa su inmovilidad. Esta conclusión es reforzada por la aplicación de la discutida norma hermenéutica (expressio unius est exclusio alterius) al referido artículo y el análisis comparativo de otras leyes que a su vez meramente requieren certificaciones médicas sin especificar que se trata de un médico de cabecera o tratamiento. Bajo el entendido de que “[a]l interpretar y aplicar un estatuto hay que hacerlo teniendo presente el propósito social que lo inspiró”, Vázquez v. A.R.Pe., 128 DPR 513, 523 (1991), es propicio añadir que el historial de las disposiciones legales aplicables al voto de personas encamadas confirma nuestra conclusión. Al hacer este análisis, solemos recurrir a “la exposición de motivos [de la ley en cuestión], la política pública del tiempo, los informes de las comisiones legislativas y el diario de sesiones, entre otros”. Pepsi-Cola v. Mun. Cidra, 186 DPR 713, 737-38 (2012). La génesis de la controversia actual se extiende al proceso electoral de 2004, donde por primera vez la CEE estableció un procedimiento especial para el voto de electores con impedimentos de movilidad o encamados. Originalmente, el procedimiento para que estos electores votaran se incorporó mediante resoluciones de la CEE, hasta que en el 2012 se adoptó una enmienda al Código Electoral para el Siglo XXI que dispuso el Voto de Fácil Acceso a Domicilio como un tipo de voto ausente. Art. 9.039, Ley Núm. 135-2012; véase también Resolución CEE-RS-12-103; Resolución CEE-RS-04-67. El proceso para votar de esta manera, al ser equiparado a un voto ausente, se reducía a cumplimentar un formulario enviado por correo que sería verificado y aprobado por la Comisión Local. En ese sentido, no existía una cualificación o certificación médica del elector que solicitaba el voto adelantado por problemas de movilidad. Este procedimiento suscitó serias controversias en las Elecciones de 2012, al punto de que varios sectores políticos hicieron alegaciones de que múltiples votos de personas

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

San Antonio Acha v. García Vélez

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission (CEE) violated the due process rights of voters with mobility impairments by denying their early voting applications (voto adelantado) based on alleged deficiencies in their forms — including missing signatures, incomplete information, and suspected fraud (e.g., dozens of applications certified by the same physician on the same date) — while simultaneously failing to provide timely notice of those denials, thereby depriving the voters of any meaningful opportunity to cure the defects before the November 8, 2016 general election.

Alleged Acts: The controversy arose during the evaluation of early voting applications (voto adelantado) for voters with mobility impairments ahead of the November 8, 2016 general elections in Puerto Rico. Under Puerto Rico's electoral law, registered voters who suffer from a condition that impedes their mobility and prevents them from going to their assigned polling places on election day may request early voting — including "at-home" early voting for bedridden voters (encamados). The request requires medical certification of the mobility impairment. The State Elections Commission (Comisión Estatal de Elecciones, or "CEE"), presided over by defendant García Vélez, had initiated a process through which at least 10,000 Puerto Rican citizens were granted access to early voting due to mobility impediments. However, 788 of these applications were challenged before the CEE due to alleged defects.

Procedural history: On October 28, 2016 — just days before the November 8 general election — the Electoral Commissioner of the Partido Nuevo Progresista (PNP) petitioned the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico to review the CEE's denials, asking the Court to authorize the hundreds of denied early voting applications for persons with mobility impairments.

Summary: In the weeks leading up to the November 8, 2016 general elections in Puerto Rico, the State Elections Commission (CEE) processed over 10,000 applications for early voting from voters with mobility impairments who were unable to go to their assigned polling places on election day. The CEE identified 788 applications as potentially defective. However, the CEE sent the denial notices late to the affected voters, giving them no meaningful opportunity to respond to the alleged defects or to cure the deficiencies before the election.

Conclusion: The Court ruled that the CEE's late notification of its denial resolution violated the due process rights of disabled voters, and as a remedy, validated all of the challenged early voting applications, thereby allowing the hundreds of voters with mobility impairments to cast their ballots in the November 8, 2016 general election.

Legal Issue(s)

Accessibility
Voter Registration
Voters' Rights

Applicable Law(s): Puerto Rico Constitution, Article II, § 7, and Puerto Rico Electoral Law

Region: Americas

Country: Puerto Rico

Language of Decision

Spanish

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Nov 4, 2016

Geolocation

Latitude: 18.4578

Longitude: -66.0863

: Geolocation

Link: https://www.lexjuris.com/LexJuris/tspr2016/lexj2016227a.htm

Primary Documents

San Antonio Acha v. García Vélez.pdf
Spanish
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

San Antonio Acha v. García Vélez

Primary Documents

Notifications