Spain’s Constitutional Court declined to admit the Ombudsman’s appeal, ruling it premature. The Supreme Court must still decide whether about 163,000 disputed overseas registrations can affect November’s election.
By 10 votes to two, the Tribunal Constitucional declined to admit an amparo request from the Defensor del Pueblo, ruling that the required judicial route had not been exhausted. A later appeal remains possible if the procedural conditions are met.
The dispute concerns who may vote, not how ballots are counted. About 163,000 people whose Spanish nationality was granted under a contested administrative instruction are included in the electoral roll for Spaniards resident abroad, known as the CERA. The Supreme Court’s precautionary measure is meant to prevent those registrations from affecting the election before the case is resolved. In an order dated 23 October 2026, the court identified the affected group as 163,020 people subject to the application of the first paragraph of Additional Provision 8 of the Ley de Memoria Democrática.
The case before the Supreme Court challenges the Junta Electoral Central’s refusal to remove the voters from the CERA. It does not directly seek to annul the instruction issued by the Dirección General de Seguridad Jurídica y Fe Pública (DGSJFP) on 25 October 2022. Voters can be excluded from the suspension by providing the required consular certification. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has warned it cannot review every relevant nationality grant for the electoral roll closed on 1 August 2026, which applies to the elections called for November. The Supreme Court’s 23 October order requires the ministers responsible for Justice and Foreign Affairs to send the nominal list of the 163,020 affected people to the court by 15:00 on 28 October. They must also provide it to the Junta Electoral Central and the Oficina del Censo Electoral.
The legal dispute began with two different nationality routes. The Ley 52/2007, de Memoria Histórica, allowed children of Spaniards of origin to acquire nationality without proving exile; a separate route covered grandchildren of people who had lost or renounced Spanish nationality because of exile. The Ley 20/2022, de Memoria Democrática, repealed that law and required proof of exile for first- and second-degree ancestors. Issued six days after the 2022 law, the DGSJFP instruction interpreted the rules as providing a general route without that requirement for children and grandchildren of Spaniards of origin. Many jurists cited by Natalia Velilla consider that interpretation unlawful because an administrative instruction cannot expand the cases set out in a law.
Velilla says the instruction was not successfully challenged through the available routes. The Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid rejected an attempt by the Asociación por la Reconciliación y la Verdad Histórica in April 2023, finding the group lacked standing. A separate challenge based on the Justice Ministry’s administrative silence remains unresolved. Individual civil-court challenges to nationality grants are also possible, but Velilla notes that recipients have little reason to contest their own status.
The Constitutional Court’s decision does not resolve the electoral question. Velilla argues that either outcome carries a political cost: lifting the measure would allow the affected voters to participate, while keeping it in place would require them to prove the relevant exile-related conditions. She also warns that a candidate or representative of a competing list could challenge the result. For context on a separate dispute involving political rights exercised by Spaniards abroad, see the Comín mandate dispute.
Overseas votes made up less than 1% of ballots cast in the last general election, and only 10% of Spaniards registered abroad in the CERA voted. The Supreme Court’s order followed an agreement from the Junta Electoral Central, which requested guidance on complying with earlier court orders in the precautionary proceedings. The court warned that failure to provide the list could result in a coercive fine or referral of information for possible criminal-responsibility proceedings under Article 112 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Contencioso-Administrativa. The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether to lift or maintain its precautionary measure.
