One day after the popular candidate, Ismael “Titi” Rodríguez Ramos, will take possession of the office of the Mayor of Guánica, the High Council confirmed the statements of the Court of First Instance in favor of the allegations of Edgardo Cruz Velez, who campaigned as a direct candidate contender.
In summary, by decision 7-1, the Supreme Court ruled that the president of the State Election Commission (CEE), Francisco Rosado Colomer, had the authority to list variations of Cruz Vélez’s name that would be awarded to him and that the CEE itself is obliged to award all votes containing one of these variations, even if the voter has the corresponding rectangle has not marked the direct nomination column.
The judgment of the court, written by the examining magistrate Erick Kolthoff Caraballo, essentially implies that the EEC should open the files of mainstream and face-to-face schools for early voting to identify ballots that contain the Cruz Vélez name, but not the mark in the rectangle.
It also in all likelihood implies that both Rodríguez Ramos and the other party candidates will get votes subtracted, as the electronic counting machines would have identified the ballots in which the voter intended to cast a vote as full votes. mixed.
According to the results published on the EEC website, Rodríguez Ramos received 2,386 votes and the former mayor Santos “Papichy” Seda, of the New progressive party2,332. While appeals were being heard by Supreme Judge Anthony Cuevas, the EEC stated that Cruz Vélez had received 2,335 votes, with the possibility that the number would increase once more ballots were evaluated.
The CEE portal lists that the column of direct nominations received 2,362 votes, but it doesn’t specify how many are ahead of Cruz Vélez.
Last week, the PNP election commissioner, Hector Joaquin Sanchez, he stated publicly that Cruz Vélez would win by a minimal margin if the Supreme Court upheld the first instance decision.
The presiding judge Maite Oronoz and the corresponding judge Luis Estrella Martinez issued compliance advice, while the employee Angel Colon Perez gave a similar opinion.
Only the examining magistrate Rafael Martinez Torres issued a dissent, arguing that the candidates had the right to challenge the result of the scrutiny only after a winner was certified. In this sense, he pointed out that the Supreme Court should have rejected certification of the funds to bring them directly to trial.