Previous 7 / 36 Next

Pino v. Uno Radio Group, 189 DPR 84, 92 (2013). De manera que un tribunal no puede concluir que existe justa causa para el cumplimiento de un requisito de ley que le confiere jurisdicción en el abstracto, ausente de alegación o prueba que justifique tal curso de acción.[5] II En vista de que una mayoría de este Tribunal asumió jurisdicción cuando no la tiene,[6] entendemos que es necesario exponer los hechos que dieron inicio a esta controversia, ya que en la Sentencia emitida no se incluyen ni se discuten. Según mencionado previamente, el Comisionado Electoral del PNP solicitó la revisión de una Resolución Enmendada emitida por la CEE. Mediante ésta, la CEE consolidó 19 apelaciones relacionadas a 788 electores que solicitaron, al amparo del Art. 9.039(m) de la Ley Electoral, 16 LPRA sec. 4179, su derecho a ejercer el voto adelantado en el domicilio por padecer de condiciones médicas que afectan su movilidad y les impiden asistir a su colegio de votación. Tras evaluar los recursos, la CEE denegó una gran cantidad de solicitudes porque: (1) no contenían la firma del elector; (2) el doctor que certificó la condición no era el médico de cabecera o tratamiento del elector o no tenía su licencia médica vigente, y (3) los electores no tenían problemas de movilidad, entre otras. En su recurso, el Comisionado Electoral del PNP alegó que se violó el debido proceso de ley de estos electores toda vez que no fueron notificados de la apelación presentada por las Comisiones Locales ante la CEE. Además, señaló que la CEE erró: (1) al definir qué es un médico de cabecera o de tratamiento; (2) al cuestionar la validez de las licencias de los médicos y si éstos tenían “good standing”; (3) al denegar solicitudes porque el mismo médico certificó demasiadas, y (4) al examinar si la movilidad física de varios electores es de tal naturaleza que le impide acudir al centro de votación.[7] Una vez este Tribunal certificó este asunto, nombramos a la Hon. Aileen Navas Auger, jueza que presidía el caso consolidado en el foro primario, como comisionada especial y le ordenamos a celebrar vistas evidenciarias y a presentar un informe con sus determinaciones de

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