### Pressures or Constitution: What Dictates the Limits on Overrepresentation?
Written by: Felipe de la Mata
September 9, 2024
Recently, the Superior Chamber of the Electoral Tribunal (TEPJF) concluded a significant case regarding the limits on overrepresentation in the assignment of federal deputy seats. This topic stirred considerable debate among the public and the legal community in Mexico.
Democratic discussions outside the Electoral Tribunal are necessary to maintain a deliberative and pluralistic democracy. However, some of these discussions extended beyond logical debate, evolving into real pressures and threats, many of which were made public on social media.
A significant portion of academia, public opinion, and political opposition, after the June 2 election results, vehemently demanded that the TEPJF either ignore or reinterpret the constitutional text, legal norms, and precedents to achieve what was perceived as a fairer relationship between votes and legislative seats in the Chamber of Deputies.
Despite this demand, a majority of four TEPJF members found it impossible to comply because a constitutional judge’s role is to apply the Constitution, providing security and certainty to the parties by upholding precedents.
For constitutional magistrates, it’s crucial to adhere to supreme norms, resisting pressures or threats intended to influence judicial decisions. This approach embodies an essential principle of judicial labor: judicial independence.
Therefore, the TEPJF upheld the General Council of the INE’s agreement determining that the limit on overrepresentation in the assignment of federal deputy seats is verified by political party, not by coalition.
The Mexican system is not one of pure proportionality. Instead, it is a mixed system where 300 deputies are elected by relative majority and 200 by proportional representation (Article 52 of the Constitution). This system aims not for a perfect vote-seat equivalence but to ensure political representation even for forces that did not win in their districts.
Our legal norms dictate that overrepresentation limits be checked per political party when assigning seats by proportional representation (Article 54, Section V of the Constitution; and Article 15, Section III of the General Law of Electoral Institutions and Procedures).
This judicial interpretation is not new; it has been established and reaffirmed in all TEPJF precedents since 2009, especially in SUP-REC-693/2015 and SUP-REC-943/2018.
The Tribunal’s majority favored an interpretative scheme that honored the explicitness of the norms and the established precedents, ensuring equal historical application of the proportional representation system.
Applying a different interpretation for various political forces would have resulted in inequality and suspicion regarding precedent application.
The Tribunal must not make decisions for political convenience but follow institutional channels to reform electoral law. This is a legislative task, not a judicial one.
Judges often face pressures from interest groups. However, they must resolutely adhere to the law, delivering decisions based on juridical rationality despite a potentially complicated context.
The limits on overrepresentation are guided solely by the Constitution and tribunal precedents. Our role was to apply it, ensuring the rule of law.
—
### Secondary Article: Current Events in Mexican Electoral Affairs
**Ongoing Debate on Electoral Reform in Mexico**
As political tensions surround the Mexican electoral system, discussions about potential reforms continue. Political leaders, both from the ruling party and the opposition, have reiterated the need for adjustments to avoid discrepancies and ensure fairer representation in future elections.
In recent months, various proposals have surfaced, including the reduction of overrepresentation thresholds and adjustments to the proportional representation system. While some argue these changes would enhance democratic fairness, others believe they might unbalance the established political structure.
**Electoral Tribunal’s Recent Decisions: Another Hot Topic**
The Electoral Tribunal’s decisions remain a hot topic among political analysts and the general public. Many scrutinize the Tribunal’s role and decisions, often sparking heated debates across media platforms.
The Tribunal recently affirmed the INE’s decision to maintain the integrity of the election results, a move seen as upholding democratic principles despite significant external pressures.
**Implications for Future Elections**
Looking ahead, the ongoing discussions and Tribunal decisions are likely to shape upcoming electoral processes in Mexico. As legal frameworks evolve, political players must adapt to ensure compliance and protect democratic values.
Public engagement and scrutiny are vital for a healthy democracy, and these discussions underscore the importance of maintaining transparency and adherence to the rule of law in Mexico’s electoral system.