The conservative sector of the General Council of the Judiciary (CGPJ) has divided in a plenary session over the debate on the incorporation of remote voting for the election of members of the governing bodies of the Supreme Court, the National Court, and the 17 High Courts of Justice. The CGPJ had a plan to reform the regulations governing these elections and incorporate remote voting, a measure that has been demanded by three of the four main judges’ associations, but opposed by the majority Association of Magistrates (APM). The conservative block within the CGPJ mobilized to try to block the proposed reform, but remote voting was ultimately approved by a vote of 10 to 5.
The incorporation of remote voting has opened a new source of tension within the CGPJ, as the debate over this voting method has spread to the conservative sector of the council. The progressives, who support the regulation of remote voting, feared that the conservative councilors proposed by the PP would reject the reform, despite the endorsement of the technical team of the Council. The vote in the plenary session was a confirmation of the agreement adopted by the Permanent Commission on November 2, approving the introduction of remote voting, with 10 councilors voting in favor and 5 against.
The victory in the incorporation of remote voting is a result of pressure from three judicial associations who sent a joint letter to the Council expressing their concern that the proposal might not pass. The associations argued that the current method of voting by mail often results in ballots not arriving on time, affecting the right to vote. Remote voting was seen as a more transparent and secure option, compared to the current practice of delegating votes to other colleagues. The APM, which benefits from the current system, argued that there is currently no legal framework to regulate remote voting.
The governing bodies of the main courts, including the Supreme Court, have opposed the introduction of remote voting, arguing that the current system benefits the APM, which has a large number of members in leadership positions and a well-organized voting mechanism. The governing bodies play a key role in making organizational and administrative decisions within the courts, such as appointments and inspections, and are composed of both appointed and elected members.
In the last elections held in November 2019, the APM dominated the election of governing body positions, winning 52.1% of the total seats. They secured a majority in the Supreme Court, the National Court, and several High Courts of Justice. The progressive association Juezas y Jueces para la Democracia also won a seat in the Supreme Court, highlighting the competition between different judicial associations for representation in the governing bodies of the courts. The incorporation of remote voting has implications for the balance of power within the judiciary and reflects ongoing debates about transparency and accountability.
Overall, the debate and decision to introduce remote voting within the CGPJ highlight the internal divisions within the judiciary and the power dynamics between different judicial associations. The approval of remote voting represents a shift in the traditional dominance of the conservative sector within the CGPJ and has implications for future elections and decision-making processes within the Spanish judicial system.
