Previous 115 / 115 Next

[93] Artículo 16 En caso de postulación de personas transgénero, transexuales, intersexuales o muxes, la postulación de la candidatura corresponderá al género al que la persona se auto adscriba y dicha candidatura será tomada en cuenta para el cumplimiento del principio de paridad de género. De la cual el partido político postulante deberá informar en el registro correspondiente a la fórmula o planilla de que se trate. [94] Octavio Alberto Orellana Wiarco, “El ius puniendi y los fines de la pena”, consultado en: http://cleuadistancia.cleu.edu.mx/cleu/flash/PAG/lecturas/tratamiento/Individualizacion%20de%20la%20pena.pdf, página: 16. [95] Ibid., página: 22. [96] Lugi Ferrajoli, Derecho y Razón:Teoría del Garantísmo, Editorial Trota, Madrid, 1995, p.480-509. [97] Esto incluye también a los hombres transgénero dentro de esa partida. [98] Voto concurrente en el SUP-JDC-35/2018 aprobado por unanimidad de votos el 22 de marzo de 2018 (Caso paridad y reelección en el Estado de México). [99] SCJN. Tesis aislada 165822. P. LXVI/2009. Pleno. Novena Época. Semanario Judicial de la Federación y su Gaceta. Tomo XXX, Diciembre de 2009, Pág. 7. [100] En otras democracias existen verificativos de distinta índole para que las personas transgénero puedan ejercer ciertos derechos y, por tanto, en donde su simple auto adscripción es insuficiente. Por ejemplo, en Australia la Corte Suprema ha afirmado que la identidad de género se verifica, en gran medida, por cómo la sociedad reconoce a determinada persona, y en Reino Unido, para que una persona pueda acceder a la reasignación de sexo se requiere que haya vivido, entre uno y dos años, de manera congruente con el género al que se pretende transitar. Esto se ha llamado “la experiencia de la vida real” (o “Real Life Experience”). Ver https://www.judiciary.uk/wpcontent/uploads/JCO/Documents/judicial-college/ETBB_Gender_reassignment__finalised_.pdf [101] SUP-JDC-14855/2011 y acumulados. Eduardo Mereles Ortiz y otros vs. Consejo General del Instituto Federal Electoral. Magistrado Ponente: José Alejandro Luna Ramos, 11 de enero de 2012. [102] SUP-JDC-461/2009. Mary Telma Guajardo Villarreal vs. Comisión Nacional de Garantías del PRD. Magistrado Ponente: Salvador Olimpo Nava Gomar, 6 de mayo de 2009. [103] ST-JDC-278/2015. José Luis Gutiérrez Cureño vs. Comisión Nacional Jurisdiccional del PRD. Magistrada Ponente: María Amparo Hernández Chong, 4 de mayo de 2015. [104] SUP-JRC-96/2008. PVEM vs. Tribunal Electoral del Distrito Federal. Magistrado Ponente: Manuel González Oropeza, 7 de mayo de 2008. [105] SUP-REC-46/2015. Partido Socialdemócrata de Morelos vs. Sala Regional del Distrito Federal. Magistrado Ponente: Constancio Carrazco Daza, 13 de marzo de 2015. [106] Charles Taylor, 1992. Multiculturalism and “The politics of Recognition”: An Essay, Princeton University Press, pp. 25 [107] Ver también McCombs, Theodore y Shull González, Jackie. 2007. “Rights to Identity”, International Human Rights Law Clinic, University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Disponible en http://scm.oas.org/pdfs/2007/CP19277.PDF 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