Background on the Case and Key Players
Last week, Mexico’s Special Chamber of the Federal Electoral Tribunal (TEPJF) resolved another significant case concerning judicial elections held on June 1. The controversy revolves around the so-called “accordion” case, which involves allegations of illegal vote inducement and coercion, misuse of public resources, and violation of electoral equity principles.
The complaint focused on the existence of “accordion” guides or campaign materials with voting recommendations, allegedly distributed by Morena and certain public servants. These materials were said to have influenced voters’ decisions.
The INE’s Preliminary Analysis and Denial of the Complaint
The Institute for Electoral Affairs (INE) initially dismissed the complaint, stating that the promoter failed to specify concrete facts, omitted circumstances surrounding the alleged incidents, and did not provide any evidence supporting the claimed infractions.
Unsatisfied with this decision, the civil association promoting the complaint appealed to the TEPJF. However, the Special Chamber upheld the INE’s dismissal (SUP-REP-247/2025). Here are the reasons behind their decision.
TEPJF’s Reasoning Based on Precedents
The TEPJF referred to its established precedents regarding the minimum elements required for a preliminary analysis of a special sanctioning procedure during an electoral process.
In this case, the TEPJF found that the complaint lacked specifics about when and where the alleged incidents occurred, as well as which acts were committed by those denounced. The complaint only made general assertions based on news articles reporting the supposed existence of “accordion” materials without mentioning dates or specific locations.
Moreover, the promoting association did not introduce new arguments but merely insisted that the provided evidence proved the infraction.
Legal Principle of Device and Its Implications
It’s crucial to understand that a sanctioning procedure, like the one analyzed in this case, is legally grounded on the discretionary principle. This principle implies that the person making the accusation must support their claims with evidence and present it in their initial statement.
Four TEPJF magistrates confirmed the dismissal of the complaint due to the promoter’s failure to meet this burden of proof.
Addressing Misconceptions and Future Proceedings
There have been numerous unfounded opinions (possibly part of opposition propaganda) suggesting that the TEPJF’s decision definitively closes the “accordion” case in the judicial election. However, this is incorrect as there are still 127 pending lawsuits that the Special Chamber will resolve no later than August 28.
The “accordion” issue will be examined individually, considering each case’s evidentiary merits to determine whether partial or total vote nullification in the judicial election is substantiated.
This particular dismissal of an administrative complaint does not preclude or discard subsequent complaints or appeals that may lead to further examination of this topic.
Key Questions and Answers
- What was the controversy about? The case, known as the “accordion” case, involved allegations of illegal vote inducement and coercion, misuse of public resources, and violation of electoral equity principles during judicial elections held on June 1.
- Who made the complaint? A civil association filed the complaint with the INE, alleging that Morena and certain public servils distributed “accordion” materials to influence voters.
- How did the INE respond? The INE dismissed the complaint, stating that the promoter failed to provide concrete facts, omitted crucial details, and lacked evidence.
- What did the TEPJF decide? The Special Chamber of the TEPJF upheld the INE’s dismissal, citing insufficient specifics and evidence in the complaint.
- What does this mean for future proceedings? This decision does not close the “accordion” case, as there are still 127 pending lawsuits. The TEPJF will resolve these cases by August 28, examining each on its merits to determine if vote nullification is warranted.
