Previous 24 / 36 Next

con impedimentos para firmar, leer o escribir, en cuyo caso deberán “hacer una marca y alguna persona autorizada por [estos] certificará este hecho con su firma como testigo en el espacio que a estos fines provee la solicitud”. Íd. Lo primordial al momento de examinar y aplicar una ley es interpretar su texto. Esto, pues, “cuando el legislador se ha manifestado en lenguaje claro e inequívoco, el texto de la ley es la expresión por excelencia de toda intención legislativa”. Romero Barcelo v. E.L.A., 169 DPR 460, 476-77 (2006); véase también Brau v. ELA, 190 DPR 315, 338 (2014). A su vez, es imprescindible procurar que la interpretación que así se derive de la ley conserve cierta lógica y razonabilidad, pues los tribunales también debemos evitar que la pura aplicación mecánica de la ley acarree graves injusticias. La disposición de la Ley Electoral que está en controversia requiere que el formulario de un Voto de Fácil Acceso en el Domicilio por razón de inmovilidad lo certifique “el médico de cabecera o de tratamiento del elector”. 16 LPRA sec. 4179(m). Al interpretar esta disposición, es de utilidad la regla hermenéutica denominada expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Según dicha regla, “la mención específica de una persona o cosa implica la exclusión de otras personas o cosas”. R.E. Bernier y J.A. Cuevas Segarra, Aprobación e interpretación de las leyes en Puerto Rico, San Juan, Pubs. J.T.S., 1987, pág. 345. Dicha norma parte de la renuencia de los tribunales a imputarle actos inútiles o fútiles a la Asamblea Legislativa. Flamboyán Gardens v. Junta de Planificación, 104 DPR 254, 262 (1975). En este caso, sería difícil ignorar la especificidad provista al tipo de médico que certificaría la condición de inmovilidad del elector, ya que el legislador no dispuso que fuera cualquier médico, sino el médico de cabecera o de tratamiento del elector. Así, al mencionar específicamente que se trataría del médico de cabecera o tratamiento del elector, el legislador excluyó a otros médicos de la facultad de certificar el referido formulario.[36] En ese sentido, resultan ilustrativas otras acciones legislativas en las que, a diferencia del caso ante nos, el legislador ha requerido certificaciones médicas con expresiones genéricas. Estas,

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