The Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) said that the case regarding election inconformities initiated by the Progressive Movement [the allliance of leftist parties whose presidential candidate is Andrés Manuel López Obrador] against the presidential election does not prove any of the suppositions of invalidity for these elections, nor does it prove their supposed invalidity due to the alleged buying and coercion of votes.
In its detailed report submitted to the Electoral Court of the Judiciary of the Federation (TEPJF) [which will evaluate complaints and rule on the validity of the election by early September], the IFE emphasizes that an alleged breaching of spending caps does not cancel the election campaign, even thought it has not yet been established that this occurred. The IFE indicated that, at this stage, only preliminary expenditure reports have been delivered--which cannot be considered as a basis for an extraordinary investigation--and it will only have the final financial report on October 8, when the Control Unit of the institute will have the data "to warn of any alleged exceeding of the campaign spending limits."
In [the Progressive Movement] case, "there is no legal basis" for it to lead to the cancellation of the registration of the candidacy [of the apparent winner, Enrique Peña Nieto], "let alone the invalidity of the election based on the hypothesis [that Peña Nieto's candidacy was invalidated by supposed violations of election rules].
Regarding one of the central questions of the Progressive Movement, vote buying and coercion, the IFE estimated that,
"assuming--without conceding--that the 6,294 proofs presented by the coalition document a form of pressure on the electorate, they do not prove that such circumstances were decisive in the outcome of the vote, since the difference between [Peña Nieto and López Obrador] in the recorded vote is 3,329,785 votes. Therefore, it is not sufficient for fulfilling the requirements of invalidity."Nor does [the case] provide the determining evidence, i.e., "that the alleged buying and coercion of votes, because of its magnitude, as well as its severity, could have affected the will of the voters." In its nearly 300 page document, the IFE claims to have provided "the guarantee of freedom and secrecy in voting as a right of the voter" through election materials (voting booth screens), compliance with legislation and the promotion of various campaigns to suppress the practice [of vote buying and coercion], the combating of which is not the central responsibility of the institute.
In its lengthy argument, the IFE invalidates each of the grievances that the Progressive Movement puts forward--including the use of controversial Soriana [prepaid or discount] cards and Monex electronic money cards--such that it dismisses them as probable proof of the buying and coercion of votes. Regarding the complaint's presentation "the circumstances of means, time and place were not made evident", so its value is "merely circumstantial".
Regarding
"the approximately 2,345 Soriana cards presented in connection with allegations of the breaching of campaign spending caps, these must likewise be dismissed as to their legal value. Their issuance doesn't demonstrated that they are the responsibility of Soriana, since no evidence exists ... of their authorship (...) There is no certainty that the [cards] were actually received by the means that are claimed, and their mere existence does not show either that their being distribution was based on conditions [of voting], under what assumptions, and much less, that they contained money or some kind of benefit."As for Banco Monex [pre-paid cards], IFE goes further in its remarks, accepting that
"in the event that any violation of the electoral regulations shall be proven in connection with the election auditing process, this will be grounds for an administrative penalty and a cause for invalidating the presidential election, as claimed by complainant."Regarding Monex and the invoices of the Inizzio Commercial Group and Epfra Marketing, which the Progressive Movement maintains provided illicit money to the campaign of Enrique Peña Nieto, the Institute considers the complaint to be unfounded. "Again, there is the erroneous premise that the mere submission of invoices proves the alleged infringement." IFE has referred the PAN's complaint about this same matter to the Control Unit, which must evaluate it "in a detailed manner, with all the evidence provided."
According to the IFE, "the simple presentation of invoices doesn't prove that there is an illegal contribution to the candidate in question, still less that the campaign spending cap was exceded."
Elaborating on the provision of the cards from Soriana, Monex and others, the electoral body adds more reasons to dismiss them as evidence:
"It hasn't been verified, and therefore can't be fully proved (that the) giving out of the cards with 'benefits' was done with the aim of pressuring or coercing voters to cast their vote for a certain coalition, thus proving the infringement of the right of a free vote, regardless of whether this act might be determinative or not in the computation of the vote."While arguing against vote buying and coercion as grounds for nulification, the IFE report also addresses the rest of the grounds to annul the presidential election: that at least 35,000 voting booths were not installed, that fraud or error in the computation is proven; that [party] representatives were expelled [from voting stations]; that there was physical violence or pressure on pollworkers or serious irregularities. Spanish original