When Administrative Formalism Challenges Popular Sovereignty: The Electoral Court Under Constitutional Scrutiny

A challenge to a ruling by Uruguay’s Electoral Court raises fundamental questions about constitutional interpretation, digital tools and the effective exercise of mechanisms of direct democracy.

CONSERVATIVE POLITICS AGAINST SOVEREIGNTY
The Republic of Administrative Rulings: When the Electoral Court Fears the Constitution
By Dr. Nelson Jorge Mosco Castellano

There are moments in Uruguay’s institutional life when legal forms cease to be the channel of liberty and become the shackles of sovereignty. Judgment No. 28714 of the Electoral Court—another link in the chain of administrative locks intended to silence the voice of citizens in the face of the initiative promoted by the National Constitutional Reform Commission—calls for an urgent moral and legal autopsy of our system.

Faced with this obstacle, the signatories—Mercedes Vigil, Eduardo Abenia and Roberto Alfonso Azcona, on behalf of the promoting Commission—formally filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Case No. 2026-18-1-001472) pursuant to Law No. 20.333, challenging a decision that hides behind outdated circulars to deny the use of technology in favor of popular sovereignty.

The Formal Maze and the Defects of the Challenged Decision
With the rigor of the bureaucrat who would rather sacrifice justice than disturb a piece of paperwork, the Court relies on Article 161 of Law No. 7.812 and Circular No. 12.430 to reject the incorporation of digital means and declare a motion inadmissible due to its alleged three-day “late filing.”
To disguise as an “unreviewable judicial act” a decision that is clearly political-electoral in nature is an abuse of legal interpretation.
The ruling suffers from serious defects that require its revocation:
Error of law: by adopting a restrictive interpretation of constitutional powers and of the legal framework governing advanced electronic signatures.
Insufficient reasoning: by merely referring in general terms to previous provisions without providing its own specific and reasoned grounds.
Irrationality and disproportionality: by rejecting a technologically suitable alternative that is safer and more efficient.
Restriction of political rights: by limiting mechanisms of direct democracy without an express legal basis.

Violation of the principle of good administration: by disregarding available public technological tools that guarantee transparency.

The Court’s Powers and the True Meaning of Article 331
Article 322 of the Constitution grants the Electoral Court broad powers over the oversight of direct democracy, including procedural rule-making and technical organization.
The Court’s own historical practice—which repealed Circular No. 8821/2012 and introduced fingerprint identification through Circular No. 12.430—demonstrates that instrumental verification methods fall within its regulatory authority. If it was able to introduce material requirements, it can also incorporate equivalent technologies without the need for new legislation.
The plain wording of Article 331, paragraph A, which regulates one of the mechanisms for constitutional reform through popular initiative, shows that the substantive requirements are qualified citizenship, registration in the National Civic Register, the required number of endorsements and valid expression of will.

The Constitution does not impose an exclusive handwritten signature, ink fingerprint or paper format as an essential formality. Where the Constitution makes no distinction, the interpreter should not add one.

Law No. 18.600 and the Principle of Functional Equivalence
The refusal directly conflicts with Law No. 18.600: electronic documents satisfy the requirement of written form (Article 4), advanced electronic signatures have the same legal validity as handwritten signatures (Article 6), and public bodies may use them unless an express legal formality provides otherwise (Article 8), which could likewise be authorized under Article 331.
Under the principle of functional equivalence, the advanced electronic signature fully fulfills the function of proving identity and intent while providing stronger technical safeguards:
Cryptographic integrity of the document.
Non-repudiation by the signatory.
Reliable record of date, time and complete traceability.
Automatic detection of duplicate submissions and prevention of tampering.
Technical Feasibility and a Neutral Institutional Portal
The proposed system does not require delegation of authority but would operate exclusively under the Electoral Court’s control:
The citizen authenticates using an advanced electronic signature.
The citizen enters the series and number of the civic credential.
The Electoral Court directly verifies the information against the National Civic Register.
The system automatically rejects inconsistencies or duplicate submissions.

This permanent infrastructure would reduce logistical burdens, the risk of losing records and archival costs, while providing a neutral resource equally available for every future direct democracy initiative, under the same logic by which electoral rolls are administered.

Real Equality, Favor Participationis and Conclusion
An exclusively in-person system favors sectors with established territorial structures and pre-existing organizational resources, while comparatively disadvantaging citizens living in remote areas, people with reduced mobility, workers with rigid schedules and temporary residents abroad.
Real equality (Article 8) requires effective conditions of access. Applying the principles of pro persona, favor libertatis and favor participationis, preference should be given to the interpretation that enables the technological channel.
Uruguay is a regional benchmark in digital government; refusing to use these tools creates an unjustifiable institutional inconsistency.
Leonardo Guzmán reminds us that the words of the law are living instruments, while Eduardo Lust insists that the State exists to serve the human person, not legal secretariats and “administrative rulings.”
Faced with the Electoral Court’s sterile formalism, the republican response should be only one: more republic, a living constitutional law and a prudent coexistence between paper and technology.
With pilot programs and the support of AGESIC, space should be given to the petition and to the demand that no administrative tribunal transform the constitutional right to propose the future of the Nation into a procedure denied by the stamp of a date seal.

Popular sovereignty
Electronic signature
Direct democracy

Continue reading in Global Order and Geopolitics