No time to trace the background much here,1 so I will lean on Steven Taylor (again), who has a good entry yesterday on Uribe’s plan for a “revote” of his own reelection. The matter came to a head after a Supreme Court ruling invalidating the constitutional amendment (on bribery charges) that allowed the reelection.
There is now also a proposal being floated to repeat the congressional elections of the same year (2006) that Uribe was reelected.
My comment to Steven’s post is replanted (in part) here, thought it probably makes more sense to someone reading both of Steven’s posts on the subject.
There is no good reason to repeat the congressional elections, even if one accepts Uribe’s premise (which I most certainly do not). Their constitutionality is not at issue. They were held under the reformed electoral law, which was completely separate from the presidential-reelection measure.
The bigger issue here is that the Supreme Court really made a terrible decision, politically (I have no opinion on its validity constitutionally/legally). Some things really can’t be admissible after the fact. The time for bringing charges against an amendment permitting reelection is before said reelection goes forward. Now it is a done deal, and the Court saying otherwise is simply handing a popular president a political issue to hammer the opposition with further. Pretty much totally contradictory (politically) to the (constitutional) issue the Court was judging.
A further question I have here is whether the Supreme Court even had authority to address this issue, by which I mean the constitutionality of the reelection amendment itself, not the bribery case against a legislator who voted for it. Colombia has a Constitutional Court, which is an entirely separate institution2 to address such institutional matters.
Also on this see Greg Weeks (entries Friday and Saturday, as well as a comment at the above-linked post by Taylor) and boz.
_________
- In part because I am trying to finish up a paper on–guess what–the 2006 Colombian elections! [↩]
- And like most such bodies around the world, less isolated from the political process than is the Supreme Court. The logic behind the model of a Constitutional Court (or council or tribunal) is that, because it necessarily impinges directly on “political” concerns, it should be on a somewhat shorter leash, but with mixed representation from the various political branches. [↩]
What is the precedent anywhere for a complete “do-over” of a presidential election?
Seed planted by Greg Weeks — 29 June 2008 @ 15:48
Quite right about congressional elections–and I point I meant to make in my post yesterday.
And I concur in re: the political error that the Supreme Court of Justice has created.
I have not yet read the ruling–was the re-election amendment invalidated? I am with you on whether they have the power to do what they did.
Seed planted by Steven Taylor — 29 June 2008 @ 16:14
I have not had time to read the ruling, but I do not think they did–or legally could–invalidate the amendment. I believe only the Constitutional Court could do so. But apparently they included language in the ruling calling it into question.
And, if I am right on their (lack of) jurisdiction, it is all the more reason why they should have just kept quiet on the bigger question and only rendered a judgment on the narrower question of the specific bribery case.
On precedent for a complete “do over” I am not sure there is anything like this case. Of course, the most prominent case of a “re-vote” was Ukraine in 2004, but that was a clearly fraudulent runoff, and was done long before the illegal winner would have taken office. And the courts became involved only after massive popular demonstrations forced everyone’s hand.
Obviously, if the amendment itself is unconstitutional on procedural grounds, then Uribe can’t call a re-vote on his current term. The re-vote, if there were to be any, would have to be without him, and Uribe could not run again until he had sat out at least four years. That was the constitutional status quo before the reelection amendment was passed.
Seed planted by MSS — 29 June 2008 @ 17:22
That is my interpretation (based solely on reporting): that they called the legitimacy of the amendment into question, but did not actually move to invalidate it.
Seed planted by Steven Taylor — 29 June 2008 @ 19:58
One of us ought to read the actual opinion (hint, hint!).
Seed planted by MSS — 29 June 2008 @ 20:47
So here’s the conspiracy-laden hypothetical: What if Uribe held the revote without being a candidate in mid-2009, then ran in the 2010 elections on the basis that he was never officially reelected in 2006? I know it’s not practical; it’s still fun to speculate.
[The above was boz's response to my remark: "The re-vote, if there were to be any, would have to be without him, and Uribe could not run again until he had sat out at least four years." I am moving my words down here, so that boz's words appear in the comment feed on the main page. After my words have already appeared there, for better or worse. --MSS]
Seed planted by boz — 01 July 2008 @ 12:02
Apparently Uribe decided it was not such a nifty idea, after all.
Seed planted by MSS — 21 July 2008 @ 17:05