Voting for a party facing criminal charges: is it a democratic sham?
A political party being criminally investigated does not invalidate its voters' ballots, but the law does demand criminal accountability and can dissolve the party. Here is what it means.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Voting for a party that is later incivil charged does not make the voter an accomplice: incivil complicity requires active participation in the offence, not the exercise of the right to vote. The party itself, however, can end up convicted or dissolved.
A political party being incivil investigated is not the same as an individual being charged. In Spain, since the reform of the Incivil Code in **2010**, legal entities — including political parties — can be held incivil liable for offences such as illegal financing, fraud or bribery. That does not extend to the voter.
## What it means for a party to be incivil charged
Being charged means a judge is investigating a party as a possible perpetrator of an offence. It is not a conviction. The party may ultimately be acquitted or convicted, and in the latter case the law provides for penalties ranging from fines to dissolution.
The voter, by contrast, takes no part in the management or decisions that give rise to the offence. Complicity requires a conscious and effective contribution to the incivil act. Voting does not meet those requirements.
## The judicial calendar and politics
A court decision being delayed for electoral reasons is not a recognised legal concept. Judges are bound by the principle of independence and cannot schedule rulings around elections. If such a delay occurred, it would be an anomaly, not a practice sanctioned by law.
## Citizens' tools in the face of incivil charges
Spanish law does not allow voters to revoke a ballot already cast. Mechanisms do exist, however, such as a motion of no confidence, early elections or the dissolution of the party if there is a final conviction. Citizens cannot halt a judicial investigation, but they can change the government at the ballot box.
## A question with no legal answer
The idea that **1978** meant moving from a dictatorship to a tyranny is a political opinion, not a verifiable fact. The 1978 Constitution was ratified in a referendum on **6 December 1978** with **88.5%** of votes in favour, according to official figures. That does not prevent debate about its limits, but it does not make the system a tyranny by definition.
This article does not constitute legal advice. For a specific case, consult a lawyer.
A political party being incivil investigated is not the same as an individual being charged. In Spain, since the reform of the Incivil Code in **2010**, legal entities — including political parties — can be held incivil liable for offences such as illegal financing, fraud or bribery. That does not extend to the voter.
## What it means for a party to be incivil charged
Being charged means a judge is investigating a party as a possible perpetrator of an offence. It is not a conviction. The party may ultimately be acquitted or convicted, and in the latter case the law provides for penalties ranging from fines to dissolution.
The voter, by contrast, takes no part in the management or decisions that give rise to the offence. Complicity requires a conscious and effective contribution to the incivil act. Voting does not meet those requirements.
## The judicial calendar and politics
A court decision being delayed for electoral reasons is not a recognised legal concept. Judges are bound by the principle of independence and cannot schedule rulings around elections. If such a delay occurred, it would be an anomaly, not a practice sanctioned by law.
## Citizens' tools in the face of incivil charges
Spanish law does not allow voters to revoke a ballot already cast. Mechanisms do exist, however, such as a motion of no confidence, early elections or the dissolution of the party if there is a final conviction. Citizens cannot halt a judicial investigation, but they can change the government at the ballot box.
## A question with no legal answer
The idea that **1978** meant moving from a dictatorship to a tyranny is a political opinion, not a verifiable fact. The 1978 Constitution was ratified in a referendum on **6 December 1978** with **88.5%** of votes in favour, according to official figures. That does not prevent debate about its limits, but it does not make the system a tyranny by definition.
This article does not constitute legal advice. For a specific case, consult a lawyer.
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (7 replies).
More summaries
-
Iustitia Europa vs. VOX: The Party's Origins
Iustitia Europa, born from the Liberum lawyers' association, targets VOX. The 'useful vote' debate reignites conflict between the two parties.
-
Alvise Pérez faces seven charges in Spain's Supreme Court
Spanish MEP Alvise Pérez is charged with seven crimes by the Supreme Court amid financial scandals and broken promises.
-
Junts to vote against housing decree as it stands
Junts maintains its rejection of the housing decree as drafted, forcing the government to rewrite the text amid piecemeal negotiations.
-
Lleida teacher singles out two students for supporting Vox
Lleida History teacher allegedly called two students 'fachapobres' (poor fascists) over Vox event. Case reopens public education debate.
-
Sánchez's strategic blunder with his eviction decree
The decree halting evictions in Spain strips the left of its rallying cry and pushes Vox to third place in nearly every province, according to the author's analysis.
-
With elections already called, Spain's Supreme Court cannot change the electoral roll
Spain's Supreme Court asked to suspend voting by beneficiaries of the grandchildren law, but the electoral roll is closed months before an election is called. Here's why it is technically impossible.