Previous 52 / 115 Next

individual, o general, dirigida a toda la comunidad, esto es, reprimir el injusto para disuadir y evitar su proliferación y comisión futura además de inhibir conductas que vulneren los principios rectores en materia electoral.[36] 211 De tal forma, el actuar de la autoridad electoral se debió ajustar a lo previsto expresamente en la legislación aplicable y no pretender extender los supuestos de procedencia del procedimiento ordinario sancionador. 212 Por otra parte, no obstante lo antes razonado y dada la relevancia del tema bajo análisis, no escapa a esta Sala Superior que, de las constancias que obran en autos y con motivo del procedimiento ordinario sancionador, se advierte que algunas de las diligencias ordenas por la autoridad administrativa para comprobar si existió o no un fraude al cumplimiento del principio de paridad, son discriminatorias. 213 Ello es así, toda vez que la verificación de las redes sociales para advertir elementos indiciarios relativos a la identidad de género, así como la aplicación de cuestionarios a vecinos y habitantes de los municipios a los que pertenecen los candidatos denunciados son verificativos invasivos basados en cuestionamientos que resultan discriminatorios y con un contenido precario del concepto de quién es una persona transgénero[37]. 214 De igual manera, se advierte que las solicitudes hechas a diversas instituciones estatales y de salud pública[38]para que informaran si los denunciados se encontraban afiliados a sus áreas, eran beneficiarios de algún programa o apoyo social y bajo qué sexo se dieron de alta o fueron registrados, así como la solicitud a la Dirección del Registro Civil del Estado de Oaxaca, para que informara si obraba solicitud de cambio de nombre y/o sexo por parte de los denunciados, si bien no se trata de verificaciones por si mismas invasivas, lo son de forma indirecta, porque se trata de prácticas en apariencia neutras y formalmente no discriminatorias, pero que influyen de manera desproporcionada para el reconocimiento de los derechos de las personas transgénero. 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