## Facts

- Ten women who were party militants and potential candidates filed consolidated citizen-rights actions challenging a federal electoral authority agreement governing candidate registration for the 2011–2012 federal elections.
- The challenged agreement (CG327/2011) implemented a statutory requirement that candidate slates include at least 40% of one gender (a 60/40 quota).
- The agreement’s operative gender-quota rule (Article 13) applied the quota to certain list-based candidacies but, as drafted, effectively exempted relative-majority (single-member district) nominations from the quota calculation.
- Petitioners alleged the agreement diluted the quota’s effect, created legal uncertainty in implementation, and failed to prevent circumvention through the use of substitute candidates.
- Petitioners sought protection of their rights to compete for nomination on equal terms and an order requiring the electoral authority to modify the agreement to ensure effective quota enforcement.

## Issues

1. Whether party militants and potential candidates have legal standing to challenge a generally applicable electoral administrative agreement that allegedly limits effective compliance with gender quotas.
2. Whether the agreement’s gender-quota provisions were inconsistent with the statutory quota and constitutional equality and non-discrimination guarantees.
3. Whether quota implementation must secure substantive effectiveness across nomination types, including relative-majority candidacies and the use of substitutes.

## Decision

- The tribunal consolidated the actions and held the petitioners had legal standing to sue because the challenged rules could affect their real opportunity to be nominated on equitable terms.
- The tribunal held that aspects of the agreement’s gender-quota design were incompatible with the governing equality and quota framework.
- The tribunal ordered the electoral authority to modify the relevant portion of the agreement (including the operative quota point) to ensure effective application of the statutory 60/40 requirement and to prevent regulatory designs that would neutralize the quota.
- The tribunal directed compliance, which was later addressed through follow-on administrative action and compliance supervision procedures.

## Legal Principles

- Party militants have standing to challenge generally applicable electoral-administrative rules that can limit effective compliance with gender quotas and thereby impair a real chance of nomination on equal terms.
- Political-rights protections and equality norms require a rights-maximizing interpretation of election rules so that gender-quota requirements are effective rather than merely formal.
- Electoral authorities may not implement candidate-registration criteria in a manner that undermines or circumvents the statutory gender quota; implementing rules must align with the quota’s remedial purpose.
- Measures governing candidate registration must be designed to prevent avoidance of quota requirements through exclusions (such as carving out relative-majority nominations) or mechanisms (such as substitutes) that defeat the quota’s effect.

## Conclusion

The tribunal recognized broad standing for party militants to challenge general election rules affecting gender-quota enforcement and ordered revisions to candidate-registration criteria to ensure the statutory 60/40 quota operated effectively, consistent with constitutional equality guarantees.


Chapa Hernández v. Consejo General del Instituto Federal Electoral, No. SUP-JDC-12624/2011 (T.E.P.J.F. 2011)