Spain's Constitutional Court upholds suspension of voting rights under grandchildren law

Constitutional Court rejects Ombudsman's appeal by 10 to 2 and keeps voting suspension under grandchildren law

Ten votes in favor, two against. The full bench of Spain's Constitutional Court has dismissed the Ombudsman's amparo appeal against the precautionary suspension of voting rights for beneficiaries of the grandchildren law, a decision that leaves the vote of 163,020 people already naturalized as Spaniards up in the air ahead of the general election on November 29. The ruling was adopted by auto (a formal reasoned order) rather than a simple order, given the significance of the matter and the intention of the two dissenting judges to argue their position legally.

The ruling breaks the bloc dynamic that had taken hold at the court of guarantees. Five judges from the pogre wing and five from the conservative wing joined their votes to back the opinion drafted by Enrique Arnaldo, who considers the appeal premature because the ordinary judicial route before the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court has not been exhausted, where proceedings are still ongoing. The dissenting opinions came from Ramón Sáez and former Justice Minister Juan Carlos Campo.

Why the Constitutional Court refuses to rule on the merits

The majority of the full bench holds that Ángel Gabilondo's appeal does not respect the principle of subsidiarity governing amparo claims. In other words: the Ombudsman knocked on the wrong door too early. The Supreme Court had not yet issued its ruling when the appeal was filed, and the Constitutional Court cannot act as a third ordinary instance. It is a technical dismissal, not a ruling on the merits, but it has an immediate effect: the precautionary suspension of voting rights for those naturalized under the grandchildren law remains in place.

The decision comes after the Constitutional Court itself sought a "solid majority" on this matter, aware that any ruling would be read in political terms. The choice to rule by auto rather than a simple order is no small detail: it obliges the dissenters to set out their position in writing and formally records that there is no unanimity.

The Supreme Court, Puente's directive and the origin of the conflict

The clash originated with the directive issued by the former Director General of the Registries and Notary Offices, Sofía Puente, which extended the scope of the grandchildren law beyond what the legal text provided for. That extension is what the Supreme Court has precautionarily suspended, and what the Constitutional Court now refuses to lift. Underlying it all is a debate over whether the administrative route was used to extend voting rights to people who did not fit the original legal criteria.

The figure the Supreme Court is working with is 163,020 people already naturalized under that broader interpretation. It is no small number: in a scenario of tight parliamentary seats, 163,000 votes could decide more than one seat. And that is where the calendar comes into play: the CERA vote (that of Spaniards resident abroad) is counted on the Friday after election day, which leaves technical room to locate and exclude the voters affected by the suspension.

The political reading: entrenchment or electoral calculation?

Two currents coexist in the analysis of the decision. One holds that the Constitutional Court chose not to get involved before the elections to avoid bearing the political cost of endorsing electoral manipulation; the other points to the court protecting itself against a possible post-election challenge, leaving the door open to intervene if the outcome depends on those votes. The first reading stresses institutional prudence; the second, the calculation of who gains time.

Some go further and argue that the real battle is not legal but arithmetical: if the vote of those naturalized under the grandchildren law were decisive for forming a majority, the scenario of an electoral challenge would cease to be a laboratory hypothesis. The Constitutional Court, in that case, would have to rule on the merits with the country already in post-election crisis. For now, it has not.

The two dissenting opinions and the precedent they set

Judges Ramón Sáez and Juan Carlos Campo have announced separate dissenting opinions. This is no trivial gesture: in a court used to issuing simple orders on dismissals, the choice of the auto obliges them to argue their disagreement legally and leaves a documentary trail that can be cited in future appeals. Former minister Campo, moreover, carries a political affiliation his critics will not overlook.

The dismissal does not end the conflict. It parks it. The Supreme Court is still processing the case and the Constitutional Court may be called upon again once the ordinary route is exhausted. By then, the November 29 elections may have changed the political map and, with it, the court's urgency to rule.

What happens to the 163,020 suspended voters

The precautionary suspension affects people already naturalized under the broader interpretation of the grandchildren law. They do not lose their nationality, but they are excluded from the electoral roll until the Supreme Court rules. The lingering question is whether that exclusion can be reversed before November 29 or whether the electoral calendar makes it definitive in practice. The CERA vote is counted afterwards, but the electoral roll closes earlier.

With all this, the Constitutional Court's decision resolves nothing on the merits: it merely kicks the ball to the Supreme Court's roof and leaves 163,020 people in electoral limbo. How many of those votes would have gone to one party and how many to another? Nobody knows. And in politics, that uncertainty is worth as much as a parliamentary seat.