Electoral Procedural Law: Autonomy, Sources, and Jurisprudence

Autonomy of Procedural Law

The Electoral Process: Autonomous Stages (Aftalion Vilanova)

Divisions of Autonomy

I. Legislative and Jurisdictional Autonomy

1. Through the issuance of electoral LGMIL.

II. Academic and Professional Perspective

This autonomy is evident through the generation of essays, monographs, conferences, and theses on electoral procedure for bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees.

III. Scientific Autonomy

1. It provides finality to acts not challenged within their respective districts, ensuring legal certainty and security.
2. Another purpose of electoral procedural law is to ensure that acts or resolutions of the authority are subject to the law.

Rules Governing Electoral Procedural Law

Electoral procedural law is governed by its own rules. The suppletion of procedural deficiencies in grievances occurs in three cases:

1. When they are invoked incorrectly.
2. When the claimant omits the violated legal precepts.
3. When objecting to deficiencies or omissions in expressing their concepts of grievances, provided they can be deduced from the facts narrated.

Defining Electoral Procedural Law

It is the branch of public law that directly and exclusively governs the electoral process.

Sources of Electoral Procedural Law

Sources may be real, historical, or formal. In the latter case, these sources include:

• The Federal Constitution
• General Law on Remedies in the Electoral Field
• The LOPJF (Organic Law of the Judicial Power of the Federation)
• Case Law (Jurisprudence)
• Rules of the Electoral Tribunal
• Federal and State Electoral Law
• Customary Law

Jurisprudence in Electoral Law

Specifically, jurisprudence states:

1. In the Superior Chamber, with three consistent arguments without any contrary.
2. In the five Regional Divisions, with a consistent view without any contrary.
3. Jurisprudence can also be established by contradiction, which occurs when the Superior Chamber rules on a conflict of opinion between two or more Regional Chambers, or between these and the Superior Chamber itself. In these cases, the prevailing criterion will establish jurisprudence, but without modifying the effects of the judgments that led to the contradiction.

Mandatory Nature of SCJN Jurisprudence

The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) is mandatory for the Electoral Court if it involves the direct interpretation of a provision of the Federal Constitution, and only in cases exactly applicable to the specific situation.

Where there is a contradictory argument or ruling regarding the competence of an electoral courtroom on constitutional matters, or an interpretation of a constitutional provision that may be inconsistent with another argument from the SCJN or its chambers, any of the ministers, chambers, or parties should report it. This allows the SCJN plenary to decide which final thesis must prevail, even when it cannot affect the specific legal situations arising from the judgments on which the contradictory criteria were based. (Federal Constitution, Article 99, paragraph 5; LOPJF, Articles 236 and 237)