PP-backed members tipped the balance in electoral board's decision
Ban to keep May 15 Movement off the streets Saturday had one-vote majority
The Central Electoral Board's decision to ban the May 15 Movement from holding any demonstrations for 24 hours beginning on Saturday was made in favor with votes by members who were nominated by the opposition Popular Party, EL PAÍS has learned.
After six hours of deliberations on Thursday night, race officials voted five to four to prohibit the demonstrations, while one panel member abstained.
Those voting for the ban were Pedro González Trevijano, the dean at Madrid's King Juan Carlos University and law professor Silvia Díaz, who were both tapped by the PP; Justice José Manuel González Rivas, a conservative; and bench colleagues Rafael Fernández Montalvo and Antonio Martín Valverde, both liberals.
Voting against the ban were Supreme Court Justice Luciano Varela, a liberal member on the bench; Justice José Manuel Maza; Rosario García Mahamunt, a liberal, constitutional law professor who is backed by the Socialists; and José Manuel Trayter, an administrative law professor who is supported by the Catalan nationalist bloc (CiU).
Another member backed by the Socialist Party, constitutional law professor Pablo Santolaya, abstained.
But the entire electoral board did not vote. Three Supreme Court justices who also sit on the panel left the proceedings before the vote was cast, according to sources.
The Central Electoral Board is made up of eight justices from the top court bench and five university professors who are appointed by Congress.
Justice Varela — currently leading the inquiry against High Court Judge Baltasar Garzón for overreaching his duties by opening an investigation into Franco-era crimes in 2009 — and his colleague Maza wrote separate dissenting opinions. It wasn't clear why the other three justices left before the vote count.
On Friday, the organization Judges for Democracy (JpD), a liberal group, said it believed that the board's decision creates "a new problem" by "restricting the interpretation" to the rights of citizens for free assembly.
