Sánchez seeks a way for Conde-Pumpido to enable a rigged vote on Spain's Grandchildren Law

Spain's Supreme Court provisionally suspended the application of the Grandchildren Law, and the government is studying whether it can appeal that decision to the Constitutional Court chaired by Conde-Pumpido, or whether that route is reserved for those affected. The executive is turning the judicial setback into a political battle against the PP and Vox.

The State Legal Service (Abogacía General del Estado, the government's legal arm) is examining whether the executive can appeal to the Constitutional Court against the precautionary suspension ordered by the Supreme Court on the Grandchildren Law. The question is procedural: whether that legal route belongs to the government or is reserved exclusively for those affected. The judicial setback threatens to frustrate the executive's strategy on voting rights for descendants of Spanish exiles.

## What the Supreme Court decided and what the government is studying

The Supreme Court provisionally suspended the application of the law. The State Legal Service is now analysing the procedural basis for a possible appeal to the Constitutional Court chaired by **Cándido Conde-Pumpido**. The open question is whether the government has standing to appeal the suspension or whether only those directly affected can do so.

The ruling came after **Pedro Sánchez** defended the government's position in an informal conversation with journalists during the National Day reception at the Royal Palace. The prime minister had hoped the Supreme Court would back his position. Before the ruling was known, he warned that the voting rights of some **400,000 Spaniards** were at stake and declared that "a democracy cannot have first- and second-class citizens".

## The figure at stake

The **400,000 Spaniards** are descendants of exiles whose voting rights are affected by the precautionary suspension. The **Democratic Memory Law**, passed in October 2022, is the legal framework the government invokes to defend this extension of suffrage.

Sánchez has pointed out that several elections have been held since the law was passed, including the 2023 general election. "The right to vote cannot be taken away," the prime minister insisted. The government argues that the judicial suspension cannot become a means of stripping a group recognised by law of its right to vote.

## The government points at the PP and Vox

Interior Minister **Fernando Grande-Marlaska** complained in corridor conversations with journalists that "it seems the right to vote is not so important to some". The government blames the opposition for the judicial setback and steps up its attacks on the **PP** and **Vox**, holding them responsible for the ruling.

The Socialists maintain that "their only project is a massive cut in rights" and aim to make the confrontation between "rights versus the right" one of the pillars of their electoral strategy. The Supreme Court ruling thus becomes a new political battle against the government's adversaries.

## A matter with judicial and electoral mileage

The Supreme Court's precautionary suspension is not a final ruling. The government is trying to turn the ruling into a campaign argument while the State Legal Service decides whether to go to the Constitutional Court. The decision on the procedural route will determine the next step in a conflict that mixes electoral law, historical memory and partisan confrontation.

The Democratic Memory Law marks three years since its passage in October 2022. In that period, general and regional elections have been held with the law in force. The government highlights that continuity to argue that the voting rights of descendants of exiles cannot be suspended by a precautionary decision.

This article describes an ongoing judicial process. For decisions affecting electoral rights, always consult the text of the court rulings and, if necessary, a specialised lawyer.