economy and politics

The new Judicial Council fails to elect its new president and postpones the vote until next week

The Judiciary has five days to choose a president from among the judges of the process, the ERE and the CNI wiretaps

The recently renewed General Council of the Judiciary faces its first blockage in its first weeks of life. The 20 new members met this Wednesday without reaching an agreement to renew the presidency of the governing body of the judges: in a first vote the candidates Pilar Teso and Pablo Lucas obtained 10 votes each and a subsequent plenary meeting to decide on the seven original candidates also ended without agreement, being rescheduled for Monday of next week.

Initially, the new members put seven candidates on the table to occupy the presidency during the new term, all from the Supreme Court. In the first votes, they obtained 10 votes each: Pilar Teso and Pablo Lucas. The first, a candidacy promoted by the progressive sector and the second by the conservative sector.

This tie has not been broken yesterday or today and the solution to the first blockage of the new mandate is to meet again next Monday to vote again, but this time with all the candidates on the table. Therefore, Ana Ferrer, Antonio del Moral, Carmen Lamela, Esperanza Córdoba and Ángeles Huet will be back on the ballot.

Since the first vote, the progressive sector of the new Council voted for Pilar Teso as its candidate to be the first woman to preside over the governing body of judges. The response of the conservative sector was to propose another of those considered progressive, Pablo Lucas, as a candidate supported by their votes. In the last two days, no member has changed their mind and the situation of deadlock has continued.

The next meeting will take place on Monday, August 5th at 11am, but this time with the seven candidates on the table again. The law establishes that a candidate must obtain the 12 votes that constitute three-fifths of the plenary session to be invested as head of the governing body of the judges, so at least two members of one of the two blocks would have to change the direction of their vote in order to be able to advance one of the two candidacies.

Source link