The Supreme Court’s decision on overseas voting could affect 163,020 people who gained Spanish nationality under the so-called grandchildren’s law. The five-to-one ruling rejects the State Attorney’s Office’s request to lift the suspension. The judges said the risk of an irregular electoral roll remains undiminished. The figure covers some of the 369,017 people who obtained nationality under the Ley de Memoria Democrática: those whose cases were processed under the Justice Ministry interpretation now under review.
The ruling turns on a question the government did not answer: how much of the original order had it carried out? The court said submissions from the State Attorney’s Office, along with accompanying reports, gave it no way to assess compliance, even approximately. The State Attorney’s Office argued that distinguishing people naturalised under the grandchildren’s law from citizens who obtained nationality on other grounds would be practically impossible before the election. It also urged the court to consider the effect of the restrictions on the fundamental voting rights of 163,020 citizens. The judges rejected the claim that the approaching 29-N election made implementation impractical. The administration, they noted, was responsible for carrying out the order.
Information from the CERA register, 2,736,522 voters were listed abroad as of 1 July 2026, up 408,262 from before the 2023 general election. The Supreme Court viewed that growth as a potentially serious risk to electoral objectivity and transparency.
The suspension was first imposed on 10 September, and its effect depends on a voter’s registration status. People whose CERA registration is still pending cannot be added to the roll under the measure. Those already registered have their voting rights suspended. The overseas electoral roll closed on 1 August, so keeping or lifting the restrictions affects the electorate’s final composition. People already listed in CERA may remain formally registered but cannot vote while the suspension is in force.
A narrow exception applies. People may vote if they obtain a specific certificate from a consulate confirming that they acquired nationality by documenting descent from exiles who left for political or ideological reasons. The provision also covers people who left because of religious persecution. It includes those who fled because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, in line with the requirements of the Ley de Memoria Democrática.
The distinction reflects the court’s concern about a Justice Ministry interpretation that could treat anyone who left Spain between 18 July 1936 and 31 December 1955 as an exile. The State Attorney’s Office said checking each file before the election would be impractical. The judges replied that administrative difficulty could not excuse non-compliance, particularly when the administration had not established what it had done.
After imposing the interim measure, the Supreme Court gave the parties 48 hours to submit arguments before deciding whether the restrictions should remain in force. The procedure was expedited as the 29 November election approached.
The court’s latest official figure is 163,020 new voters potentially affected by the broader interpretation. It acknowledged that the number was lower than earlier estimates, but said it could still have a impressive effect in the constituencies where those voters are registered. The judges said CERA must meet exacting standards for accuracy and equality. They also stressed transparency, warning that doubts about the roll can undermine the legitimacy of elected representatives.
The Fiscalía also asked the court to overturn the suspension, arguing that the right to vote should prevail. Iustitia Europa and Vox, by contrast, asked the court to uphold its order. The election campaign has also featured internal party disputes, including ERC’s disagreement over its election list. This case, but, concerns the integrity of the overseas register.
The State Attorney’s Office is considering whether it can take the matter to the Constitutional Court, or whether that route is open only to people directly affected. The ruling identifies a constitutional appeal as the only plausible way to reverse the suspension. The administration has not established how consulates should verify voters already registered under the interpretation being reviewed. Lifting the measure could restore those registrations; keeping it in force would require a way to suspend or exclude voting rights for that category.
