Brazil Electoral Prosecutors Oppose Censorship of Poll Showing Bolsonaro's Decline

Brazil's Electoral Prosecutor's Office (PGE) has declared its opposition to the censorship of a poll that indicated a drop in support for presidential pre-candidate Flávio Bolsonaro. The poll, conducted by Atlas/Bloomberg, showed Bolsonaro's numbers declining following the "Dark Horse" case, which involved alleged requests for money.

The PGE argued that the Superior Electoral Court (TSE) president, Kassio Nunes Marques, should not have intervened. In its statement, the office advocated for judicial decisions to be based strictly on technical and legal grounds, rather than being influenced by the potential repercussions of a poll's results on voters. "It is not given, in this context, for electoral justice to assume the role of a curator of the fidelity of the poll results from a consequentialist perspective, as judicial intervention should be minimalist and sufficient to avoid objectively proven dysfunctions," stated Vice Electoral Prosecutor General Alexandre Espinosa Barbosa.

The TSE had postponed its analysis of the censorship request on June 9. During that session, ministers expressed concerns about the precedents such a decision could set and the potential impact on the upcoming elections. While TSE President Kassio Nunes Marques voted to uphold the censorship, Minister Estela Aranha requested more time to review the case.

The Atlas/Bloomberg survey, released on May 19, interviewed 5,032 people between May 13 and 18. It indicated that Flávio Bolsonaro lost 6 points in a hypothetical second-round matchup against Lula da Silva after audio recordings surfaced in which Bolsonaro allegedly asked former banker Daniel Vorcaro for money. Bolsonaro's campaign team had requested the suspension, claiming the poll's question phrasing and its association of Flávio with Vorcaro "contaminate and induce the respondents' answers."

“

It is not given, in this context, for electoral justice to assume the role of a curator of the fidelity of the poll results from a consequentialist perspective, as judicial intervention should be minimalist and sufficient to avoid objectively proven dysfunctions.