The clashes that took place between the Education Committee and the parties regarding voting decisions and financing
The dispute between the parties and the Central Electoral Council over the issue of order in the ballot paper and the economic contribution comes from afar. This has been consistent in recent decisions on that point.
Every time the electoral management body organized this aspect, I found disagreements in some political sectors that felt hurt.
The decisions issued in the last three departments of the Joint Education Committee share this element, as they have not succeeded in arousing the consensus of the political class.
In general, they are minority parties dissatisfied with the criteria set by the constitutional body, which differed with the change of administration.
Disputes have gone beyond the scope of the council, since political organizations not only file appeals for review before the EMB itself, but have decided on disputes in The Supreme Electoral Court (TSE) and the Supreme Administrative Court (TSA), They made judgments in various aspects, forcing the Joint Education Committee to amend decisions to conform to the provisions.
The latest dispute arose out of Resolution 01-2021, passed on January 27th by the JCE, which chairs Roman Jackie’s Loranzo.
Through these regulations, the House decided that the numerical standing of the parties in the balloting for the 2024 elections and the economic contribution they would receive would depend on the valid votes obtained by each one separately in the three levels of the presidential and senate elections. And delegations in the last elections of 2020.
This criterion was rejected by many parties, realizing that the measure tilts in favor of the two majority parties, the Revolutionary Modern Party (PRM) and the Dominican Liberation Party (PLD), who would take first and second places on the ballot and would receive 80%. . Percent of state funding.
Parties dissatisfied with the measure now fight a battle on the same board, by appealing to review, and then, if no profit is made, they go to court.
In previous efforts of the Joint Education Commission headed by Julio Cesar Castaños Guzman and Roberto Rosario, similar disputes arose on the same point, which ended after rulings by the Supreme Electoral Court (TSE) and the Supreme Administrative Court (TSA).
In 2016, the JCE decided that the criteria to be taken into consideration are only the presidential level votes for the elections held that year.
After one year, In 2017, The same board changed this parameter by accepting an appeal for review from different parties.
Other organizations deemed affected have appealed this decision to the Supreme Electoral Court (TSE), which accepted the petition in the annulment filed and in the ruling of TSE-013-2017, decided that it should be subject to the presidential level votes, as it had previously decided.
This ruling was overturned by the Constitutional Court, upon hearing the appeal of the review, and returned the file to the Transportation Security Administration, as it is the competent authority to deal with this type of dispute.
Later, In January 2019, The TSA Presidency decided, upon accepting a request for precautionary action, that the criterion to take into account for the April 2020 municipal elections would be the presidential level vote from the 2016 election.
Then, in May 2020, the Transportation Security Administration rejected the controversial administrative appeal filed against the joint education committee’s decision, in which the criterion for determining the order of parties prevailed on the ballot paper for the presidential and legislative elections of that year, taking into account the amount. Of the valid votes obtained by each party separately at the presidential, congressional and municipal levels in the May 2016 elections.
JCE had to recover its previous decision
Three levels of rating
In the motives for Resolution 01-2021, the JCE decided that the criteria for determining the positioning of political parties, groups and movements in the 2024 vote should be the total number of valid votes obtained by each organization separately in the 1os 3 that were in dispute in the last elections, i.e. the elections of 5 July 2020, That is, elections for the presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the latter consist of regional and foreign councils.
In the resolution, which was adopted by a majority of 4 of the five members of the plenary session, the entity specified that this would result in the total valid votes obtained by each organization over the total valid votes for the first 3 electoral levels.
And it considered that, “by applying the aforementioned criterion, the collective efforts made by political organizations in achieving the popular will for the purpose of obtaining electoral positions at the disputed levels are recognized.”