Spain's State Attorney argues early election blocks 'Grandchildren Law' ruling

State Attorney claims early election makes it impossible to enforce ruling on Grandchildren Law

The State Attorney has informed the Supreme Court that the snap election makes it "impossible" to execute the precautionary suspension regarding the voter roll under the so-called Grandchildren Law. The government body is asking the High Court to lift the halt on voting rights for newly naturalized citizens before the polls are called. The news, first reported by elDiario.es, has shocked a forum that has been tracking the standoff between the Supreme Court and the Executive over the electoral census for weeks.

The issue is as trinc: the Supreme Court had provisionally suspended the inclusion in the voter roll of individuals naturalized under the Grandchildren Law, trinc an appeal questioning the legality of these naturalizations. Now, the State Attorney argues that the electoral calendar prevents verifying each registration individually, and therefore the suspension should be lifted. The Supreme Court has not yet responded.

What is the Grandchildren Law and why is it in court?

The Grandchildren Law, approved to rectify the situation of descendants of exiles, has allowed hundreds of thousands of people to gain citizenship, many residing in Argentina and other Latin American countries. The Supreme Court provisionally halted the inclusion of these new citizens in the electoral census until those who truly meet the requirements could be identified. In a written submission to the High Court, the State Attorney now argues that the snap election makes it materially impossible to check case by case before the vote.

At the heart of the matter lies an uncomfortable question: how many of these new Spaniards actually meet the legal requirements? The Supreme Court wanted to verify this. The Government says there is no time left. Meanwhile, the voter roll continues to swell with electors who, according to the court's criteria, should not be included until their status is clarified.

The calendar argument: real impossibility or excuse?

The official thesis is that there are neither technical means nor sufficient time to accredit the legality of each registration. Some argue this is strictly true: verifying hundreds of thousands of files takes months, and the snap election has reduced this to weeks. Counter-arguments suggest the Government had ample time to perform this verification before dissolving Parliament, and that the urgency is, at best, convenient.

The most optimistic calculation for the Executive assumes the Supreme Court will lift the suspension and allow new citizens to vote. The pessimistic scenario posits that the court maintains the precautionary measure, blocking the census during the campaign. Neither side seems willing to budge, and the Supreme Court, which has already seen the Government accuse it of interference, holds the final say.

External voting and the shadow of fraud

The debate over voting rights for new citizens has evolved into a broader discussion about the integrity of external voting. Some participants argue that the chain of custody for CERA (Voto de los Residentes Ausentes) votes is fragile and that envelopes are not numbered, allowing them to be substituted without trace. Others recall that postal voting has operated with guarantees for decades and that suspicions without proof remain just that—suspicions.

It is true that the electoral census for absent residents has grown notably in recent years, coinciding with the application of the Grandchildren Law. Whether these votes are counted, and how they are counted, could decide seats in provinces where the difference between the first and second place is only a few thousand ballots. This is no minor detail.

Opposition and the Supreme Court: who does what?

The opposition has asked the Supreme Court to suspend the elections until the census is purified. According to cautious jurists, this request clashes with the Constitution itself: once Parliament is dissolved, the electoral calendar is difficult to modify without a legal reform requiring majorities that no longer exist. The Supreme Court can lift or maintain the precautionary measure, but it cannot call or cancel elections.

The result is an institutional quagmire: the Supreme Court orders something the Government says it cannot fulfill, the Government asks the Supreme Court to withdraw its order, and the opposition asks the Supreme Court to do something likely beyond its power. Meanwhile, the census remains as it was.

---

With these elements, the question looming over the entire affair is political rather than legal: would the Government have benefited equally from a snap election if the Supreme Court had not paralyzed the census? The answer, I suspect, is intuited by anyone who has trinc the case. But that is another story.