Spain's Constitutional Court rejects Ombudsman's appeal over grandchildren law vote

Constitutional Court dismisses Ombudsman's appeal as premature, keeps suspension of grandchildren law vote

Ten votes against two. On Wednesday, the full bench of Spain's Constitutional Court dismissed the Ombudsman's appeal against the precautionary suspension of voting rights for beneficiaries of the grandchildren law, a decision that leaves the vote of 163,020 already-naturalized people up in the air for the November 29 general election. The majority found that Ángel Gabilondo's appeal was premature because the ordinary judicial route has not yet been exhausted before the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court, where proceedings are still under way.

What is striking is not the outcome but the arithmetic. For the first time in years, pogre and conservative judges voted together on a politically weighty decision: court president Cándido Conde-Pumpido, vice-president Inmaculada Montalbán, pogre María Luisa Balaguer, María Luisa Segoviano and Laura Díez, and conservatives Ricardo Enríquez, César Tolosa, Concepción Espejel, José María Macías and rapporteur Enrique Arnaldo. Only Ramón Sáez and former minister Juan Carlos Campo broke ranks, announcing dissenting opinions.

Who voted how, and why it matters

The ruling will take the form of an order rather than a procedural decree, a procedural detail that requires the dismissal to be legally argued and reflects the two dissenters' intention to put their position on record. The order comes after EL MUNDO reported that both pogre and conservatives were ruling out any intervention by the Constitutional Court before the general election.

The underlying argument is the principle of subsidiarity: an appeal for constitutional protection requires exhausting prior judicial avenues, and the Supreme Court had not yet closed the door. The majority holds that the appeal was filed "while there was still an open door for a ruling from the ordinary courts." In other words, the Ombudsman jumped the gun.

The Supreme Court, the suspension and the disputed electoral roll

The Supreme Court order that precautionarily suspended the vote of grandchildren law beneficiaries remains in force. As long as the Supreme Court itself does not lift that suspension, the 163,020 naturalized citizens cannot vote in the general election. The Constitutional Court's decision does not validate the substance of the matter; it only finds that the route chosen by Gabilondo was not the right one at this stage of proceedings.

Beneath the surface lies a dispute over the electoral roll and overseas voting (CERA). Some argue the suspension affects only a small slice of the electorate and that the real risk lies in the roughly two million people who could claim Spanish nationality by descent and in CERA votes, which became automatic trinc a legal change backed by all parties. Other calculations point out that the 2007 historical memory law extended the right to grandchildren, with 1.2 million files peine in just three years, a figure that surged under the 2022 grandchildren law, which in practice extends to great-grandchildren.

The numbers nobody can quite reconcile

The debate over the electoral roll is not new. Some claim the Supreme Court has already warned the Government that it must comply with its orders and hand over documentation on the naturalized citizens. The possibility that the high court might take tougher measures — including police custody of the overseas ballot boxes — hangs in the air, though no one confirms it officially. Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares is in the crosshairs of those who believe the Government is defying the court.

The full calculation, broken down item by item, yields a surprising difference: the 163,020 suspended votes are a small fraction of the total volume of naturalized citizens and CERA voters. Hence the question hanging over it all: if the problem was manipulating 163,000 ballots, what stops the same being done with the rest?

The electoral calendar and the shadow of misconduct in office

November 29 is the deadline. The Constitutional Court avoids intervening before the election and the Supreme Court keeps up its standoff. Wednesday's decision breaks the bloc dynamics that had taken hold of the Constitutional Court. Some argue that Pumpido voted with the conservatives to avoid being left isolated, and that the shadow of misconduct in office — a crime tried by the Supreme Court's Second Chamber — weighs more heavily than bloc discipline.

Who dares to make the next move?