Deciding body (English)
Deciding body (Original)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Outcome of the decision
Several political parties filed an action of unconstitutionality (constitutional review) against several articles of the State Constitution regarding electoral rules. One of the challenged rules established that local Congresses could reduce campaign periods up to 30 days in cases of a risk to public health due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The plaintiffs alleged that this provision violated the rule of law, the autonomy of different powers, and the independence of electoral authorities. The Court accepted the claim. It argued that local Congresses may not allocate more powers than that given them by the Federal Constitution and federal laws. According to the Court these rules provided that independent electoral agencies oversee the organization of campaign calendars, even in the face of an emergency, such as the Covid-19 pandemic. As a consequence, it declared the unconstitutionality of the provision.
Facts of the case
In 2020, a national emergency was declared due to the Covid-19 pandemic in Mexico. Certain electoral rules were temporarily modified to adapt to social distancing and lockdowns. In July 2021, the State of Jalisco reformed its Constitution to include a provision that allowed the local Congress to modify campaign periods due to a public health emergency. On July 31, 2021, many political parties challenged the constitutionality of the reform, alleging that it violated the principle of allocation of powers and the autonomy of electoral agencies. On December 5, 2022, the Court declared the unconstitutionality of the provision.
Type of measure challenged
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Type of procedure
Reasoning of the deciding body
The Court reasoned that the Federal Constitution and federal laws established a specific allocation of powers, which entailed the independence of electoral agencies. This autonomy implied the possibility of organizing campaign periods in accordance with the law. As the constitutional reform established a new power (not originally allocated) to local congresses to modify campaign calendars in times of a public health emergency, the provision was unconstitutional.
Conclusions of the deciding body
The Court concluded that the State constitutional reform was unconstitutional.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
- Rights of political parties and powers of electoral agencies, Art. 41.1, Mexican Constitution
- Independence and autonomy of electoral organs, Art. 41.5, Mexican Constitution
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
General principle applied
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)
The Court analyzed whether the allocation of a new power to local congresses violated the principle of a separation of powers and the independence of electoral organs. The Court held that authorities must duly follow the law and the Constitution and that allocating a new power, not previously conferred by law, was unconstitutional.
On the type of measure challenged: State measure (constitutional reform) that allowed local congresses to modify the campaign calendar due to a public health emergency.
On the type of procedure: Special procedures (Constitutional review – Art. 105 of the Constitution).