Archive for February 16th, 2012

Some Of The Flaws In The Case Of Venezuela’s Supreme Court Decision to Order The Voting Notebooks Preserved

February 16, 2012

–Why did the Court give top priority to this injunction over others waiting?

–The candidate requesting the material be preserved did not argue that there were any irregularities.But he did say the “voting notebooks” were a fundamental proof of the results. The CNE has never used or considered the notebooks to be proof of anything and the Supreme Court has said that the proof s in the actas and machines..

–It was well-known and announced by both MUD and the CNE that the “voting notebooks” would be destroyed.

–The voting notebooks only contain the name, ID numbers, fingerprint and signature of the voter, they are not used in a recount. For that one uses the actas and the voting machines. These were not destroyed, only the notebooks because they contain the identity of those that voted and are thus pro-opposition.

–A similar injunction in a 2008 internal election of Chavismo’s party PSUV was rejected because it would violate confidentiality.

–The case was considered as one of protecting the “diffuse and collective” interests of the people, but it was only one candidate that introduced it, it would have been enough to order only the material from those polling stations to be preserved. At the same time, you could violate the “diffuse and collective” interests of 3 million voters, to preserve the interest of a single person, which is really what the case is all about.

–The party bringing the injunction to the Court did not express any inconformity with the results on Sunday and his lawyer happens to be a member of Chavez’ PSUV party.

–Burning the “voting notebooks” in no way violates candidates Velasquez’ political rights as he argued. In fact, the primaries are a private agreement, Mr. Velasquez can still register to be a candidate if he feels like it.Additionally, Velasquez accepted the rules when he registered to run, they included no fingerprint machines, optional use of the ink and the burning of the notebooks.

–Strange that the decision is from the Constitutional Hall of the Court, not the Electoral hall as it should be.

–The decision was not even reviewed, it had errors on the date twice as if it was made in 2011. Was it ready before Sunday?

–Bocaranda on Monday night knew the decision was coming and wrote about it for his Monday column, this was just hours after Velazquez introduced his injunction.

Clearly, the Government wanted to induce fear in voters for the October election, creating another Tascon/Chavez-like fascist list. It was all manipulated and ordered from above once the three million avalanche became known.

This time, the smarts were on the side of the opposition, while Chavez’ mediocre buddies in the Supreme Court handled the matter badly from a legal point of view.

That’s what happens when you don’t believe in “meritocracies”…like Chavez explicitly said yesterday: “Meritocracy will never return to Pdvsa”.

Hugo, don’t be so sure, tic, tac, tic, tac.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 11,748 other followers