Spain’s Supreme Court has refused to restore the voting rights of tens of thousands of people who acquired Spanish nationality under the so-called grandchildren’s law, a measure that allows descendants of Spaniards who went into exile during the Civil War and the Franco dictatorship to claim citizenship.
The ruling means that many of those newly naturalized citizens will not be able to vote in the November 29 general election. The court rejected arguments from the State Attorney’s Office and the Public Prosecutor’s Office that the suspension should be set aside because there is not enough time before the election to revise the electoral register. These are some of the key points of Monday’s ruling:
Why has the Supreme Court ruled again?
In this latest decision, the Supreme Court is responding to an appeal lodged by the State Attorney’s Office, later joined by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, against its earlier ruling suspending the voting rights of these newly naturalized citizens. The appeal was prompted by what the government argued was a new and decisive circumstance: the calling of a general election.
What was the State Attorney’s Office’s argument?
After Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez announced the dissolution of Parliament last Monday, government lawyers argued that the proximity of the general election made it practically impossible to implement the Supreme Court’s original ruling.
Their argument stemmed from the fact that, in addition to suspending the voting rights of these citizens, the Supreme Court instructed the Electoral Commission to identify which naturalized citizens had acquired Spanish nationality directly under the law itself, which grants citizenship to descendants of Spaniards exiled for political, ideological or sexual-orientation-related reasons, and which had done so under a Justice Ministry instruction that automatically treated as exiles all Spaniards who left the country between July 18, 1936 and December 31, 1955. It is this instruction that lies at the heart of the legal dispute.
What is the Supreme Court’s response?
The justices reject the argument that carrying out this review is “impossible” because of the proximity of the election and place the blame squarely on the administration for failing to carry out the breakdown in the first place. “A material impossibility of complying with a judicial order cannot be invoked when the cause of that non-compliance lies with the very administration responsible for carrying it out,” they write.
How many people are affected?
In the rulings issued on Monday, based on figures provided by the parties, the court states that 163,020 people are affected, namely those included in the electoral register of Spaniards living abroad (CERA) as of August 1, 2026. This is fewer than the estimates originally discussed when the case began, but the justices say that does not alter the need to suspend their voting rights.
According to the justices, “the risk that an electoral roll — in this case the CERA — could be irregularly constituted without the accuracy, truthfulness, equality, objectivity and transparency required for holding an electoral process in a representative parliamentary democracy like Spain’s remains as strong as ever, even if the total numbers have fallen.”
Can those affected take part in the court case?
The justices acknowledge that the people naturalized under the grandchildren’s law, although affected in their voting rights, which are recognized as a fundamental right under the Constitution, have not been formally notified of the proceedings.
For that reason, they have instructed the administration to publish Monday’s ruling as a matter of urgency in the Official State Gazette (BOE) and ordered Spanish consular authorities to do the same on their notice boards, so that those affected may take part in the administrative litigation.
Specifically, they will be able to appear in the case as co-defendants and submit any arguments they consider appropriate regarding the interim measures adopted last September.
Can a fundamental right such as the right to vote be suspended?
The Supreme Court argues that, until it is clarified under what circumstances these individuals obtained Spanish nationality, and, by extension, the right to vote, the general interest in holding elections on the basis of an electoral register free from any doubt takes precedence over the voting rights of these more than 160,000 people. The court also notes that, strictly speaking, nationality and voting rights are not an indivisible package. As evidence, it points out that Spaniards living abroad are not allowed to vote in municipal elections.
Isn’t the right to vote a matter for the Constitutional Court?
This question has hung over the entire dispute. It was raised by the government’s lawyers themselves, who referred to an “implicit constitutional review,” and the Supreme Court addresses it in its ruling.
The right to vote is indeed recognized as a fundamental right under the Constitution, and the Constitutional Court is therefore its ultimate guarantor when laws or decisions affect its exercise. In fact, a separate appeal concerning this case has already been filed with the Constitutional Court by the far-right party Vox, which is acting as the claimant.
The justices of the Administrative Chamber maintain, however, that this does not prevent the Supreme Court from ordering a suspension. Their reasoning is somewhat technical. First, they note that the Supreme Court, as the country’s highest ordinary court, is responsible for safeguarding the rule of law and for “interpreting the legal system and applying it to the resolution of disputes and controversies brought before it.”
They further argue that, because this is a proceeding concerning interim measures, they are required only to determine whether the conditions for maintaining those measures have been met. Moreover, they insist that they are not, strictly speaking, assessing the legality, and therefore the constitutionality, of the grandchildren’s law itself. Rather, they are examining the legality of the government instruction that presumed refugee or exile status for anyone who left Spain during a specific period. It is that administrative instruction, not the law itself, that is at the center of the dispute.
Will the more than 160,000 affected citizens be able to vote on November 29?
It depends. With this ruling, the Supreme Court is maintaining the position it adopted in September, before the election was called: namely, that the registration in the electoral roll of those who acquired Spanish nationality under the grandchildren’s law is still suspended.
The situation is different for those who are already registered, the 163,000 people identified by the court. They will be allowed to vote if consular registry officials, “under their own responsibility,” certify that they are the children or grandchildren of people who went into exile “for political, ideological, religious or sexual-orientation-related reasons” and who lost or renounced Spanish nationality.
In other words, voting rights will be preserved for those who can demonstrate both their family link to an exile and the reason that relative left Spain. This will not apply, however, to those who obtained citizenship solely on the basis of the Justice Ministry instruction that presumed all Spaniards who left the country between July 18, 1936, and December 31, 1955, to be exiles.
‘Elections without the slightest shadow of doubt’
In the ruling, the justices set out a number of preliminary considerations to justify once again their decision to suspend the voting rights of citizens naturalized under the grandchildren’s law. They argue that, given the importance of the electoral process to the rule of law, the compilation of electoral rolls, which is, strictly speaking, the key act in that process, must be carried out “without the slightest shadow of doubt.”
The justices maintain that, in ruling on interim measures, they are not passing judgment on the legality of the law itself. At the same time, however, they argue that its application should remain suspended until all outstanding issues surrounding it have been clarified.
Was the decision unanimous?
No. The ruling was adopted with the dissenting vote of Justice Alicia Millán, who argued that the State Attorney’s Office appeal should have been upheld.
In her dissenting opinion, Millán contends that the decision to call an early election introduced “a new and decisive element” into the case because the election makes any potential infringement of the affected citizens’ voting rights “irreversible.”
She notes that when the Supreme Court issued its initial ruling in September, its decision was made against the backdrop of a merely “potential” election and the court expected to rule on the substance of the legal dispute before any vote took place. Now, however, a specific election date has been set: November 29.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition