Mexico's top Electoral Court
eliminated many liberals' hopes of a court intervention into the election when the TEPJF gave its decision yesterday, dismissing charges of fraud and adjusting for miscounts in the July 2nd presidential election by the liberal coalition (Por el Bien de Todos) led by Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO). Most observers foresee the decision pretty much clearing the way to recognizing conservative Felipe Calderon Hinojosa as the next President.
Political weather conditions for the next few days include heavy sneering and clear possibilities of gloating towards Lopez Obrador in the US editorial pages, with scattered showers of advice to go away phrased in a pseudo friendly manner.
Lopez Obrador and many allied protesters, meanwhile, immediately fixed upon their next goal: a September 16th "National Democracy Convention," where a "legitimate" President may be "declared" and a national "civil resistance" may be organized, on a multi-point platform which mostly concerns reforms to help Mexico's millions of desperate poor.
First, the news summary of the decision.
Tribunal finds no evidence of fraud
Wire services
El Universal
August 29, 2006
The nation's top electoral court announced Monday that a partial recount of the votes in the disputed presidential election found no evidence of widespread fraud, a ruling that placed conservative Felipe Calderón tantalizingly close to victory.
In a 7-0 ruling, the Federal Electoral Tribunal said it had found only minor mathematical and administrative errors in the initial vote count of the July 2 election. The tribunal said Monday its recount subtracted just 4,183 votes from Calderón's margin of victory, reducing it to about 240,000 over left-leaning candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador.
The panel still could refuse to certify the election, in part based on López Obrador's contention that President Vicente Fox and business groups illegally aided Calderón's campaign. Such a decision appeared unlikely, political observers said.
The tribunal said the smattering of administrative and mathematical errors in thousands of polling places were not acts of "bad faith" and did not merit throwing out the results of those polling places.
"This tribunal can say to the citizenry that their votes were counted fairly," said magistrate Fernando Ojesto. "We have followed the principle of one man, one vote, and of effective suffrage."
The jurists also rebuked the López Obrador campaign, saying it had failed to provide concrete evidence of irregularities in the thousands of challenged precincts where it had claimed fraud.
"The plaintiff says there are multiple irregularities in a large number of precincts or in this or that district," said tribunal President Leonel Castillo, referring to the López Obrador campaign. "Well, that `large number' is not enough. The law says you must specify evidence and facts."
Well, that's that, pretty much. Although part of me is left wondering just what evidence it would be physically possible to present in order to demand an investigation of electoral fraud, or do you have to be able to prove it first before you ask that it be investigated? And that's a question I'm interested in no matter how much someone lectures me on how the coalition's suits or evidence were inadequate.
Next, the view from the New York Times' Editorial Board:
Editorial
Mexico's Recount
The New York Times
...Mr. López Obrador, who trails Mr. Calderón by less than 0.6 percent of the vote, claims he really won and vows to make the country ungovernable until his claim is recognized. His supporters have set up squatter camps that have paralyzed parts of Mexico City. Mr. López Obrador argues that only a full recount would have settled the question. In a country where electoral fraud used to be routine, a full recount would indeed have been best.
But this vote was apparently well run, and there is a clear and thorough process in place to deal with challenges. The electoral tribunal is respected and independent. Mr. López Obrador's continued insistence that he was robbed now sounds like whining. If he does not desist, his party, now the country's second-largest, should decide that it is bigger than him and that its role is as opposition within, not outside, democratic processes...
...The country is split by class and geography, with the wealthy northern states supporting Mr. Calderón and the poorer south supporting Mr. López Obrador.
Even if he could govern alone, Mr. Calderón would be making policy in an echo chamber of Mexico's elite. Mr. López Obrador has flaws that have apparently kept him from the presidency. But that does not mean that the millions of Mexicans who feel represented by him should have no voice.
Meanwhile, although I haven't found any in-depth English language articles about the 16 September CND (National Convention for Democracy), here's a bit on how it's being reported:
If he loses, Mexico's Obrador would head resistance movement
By Laurence Iliff
The Dallas Morning News
MEXICO CITY - Leftist presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said Sunday that if he fails to be named the country's legitimate president, he and his supporters will create a parallel government with him as head of the civil resistance [actually this was proposed as items to be analyzed and debated at the Convention]...
The leftist leader has called on supporters to hold a convention Sept. 16 to decide the future of the resistance movement should the tribunal rule against him.
On Sunday, he warned supporters that the resistance would be subject to further criticism in the media and elsewhere for its tactics.
"They are going to make fun of us, they are going to laugh, and they are going to say that we are crazy for convoking a National Democratic Convention and saying that we no longer care what they do, that we no longer have any faith in their institutions," said Lopez Obrador.
Articles, comments, gripes, and, of course, gloats and sneers welcome below.