Controversy Over Re-election: Two Lawyers Ask Court to Allow Them to Seek Another Term on Judicial Council
Translated from Spanish, summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- Two lawyers are seeking judicial authorization to run for another term on Argentina's Council of the Magistracy, an organ that selects and removes judges.
- They argue there is a legal loophole regarding consecutive re-elections, citing a Supreme Court ruling that has led to differing interpretations of the law.
- The case involves determining whether the original law allowing re-election or a 2006 reform requiring an interval applies.
Two lawyers from different political backgrounds are pursuing legal avenues to secure another term on Argentina's Council of the Magistracy, the body responsible for appointing and dismissing judges. Fernanda Vรกzquez, aligned with Peronism, and Jimena de la Torre, associated with Pro, have filed lawsuits seeking a judicial determination on their eligibility for re-election.
Their legal strategy hinges on the argument that a legal ambiguity exists concerning consecutive re-elections to the council. They are referencing a Supreme Court ruling that has generated divergent interpretations regarding whether a judge or lawyer can serve another term immediately or must wait for a period to pass. This has led to a "declarative certainty action" aimed at clarifying which law currently governs: the original statute permitting re-election or the 2006 reform mandating an interval.
Initially, the lawyers requested their case be joined with that of Federal Cassation Chamber President Diego Barroetaveรฑa, who had secured a preliminary injunction to compete. However, Judge Enrique Laviรฉ Pico deemed the matters distinct due to the differing "estamentos" (groups) represented, judges versus lawyers, and directed the lawyers' case to a different court. The core of their argument rests on a 2021 Supreme Court ruling, "Colegios," which declared unconstitutional the council's 2006 reform that reduced its membership and introduced the re-election interval. The lawyers contend this ruling's principle extends to the re-election rules, seeking a declaration that the original law, allowing a single consecutive re-election, applies to them.
We request that Your Honor declare applicable to the plaintiffs the original text of Article 3 of Law 24.937, according to Law 24.939, which admits a single consecutive re-election and, consequently, that there is no constitutional, legal, or regulatory impediment for us to present our candidacies and participate in said elections.
Originally published by La Naciรณn in Spanish. Translated, summarized, and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.