Skip to content

Where are you from?

Choose your province and we will tell you how the deputies and senators you elected vote, one by one.

 

We remember it in this browser. If you create an account, we keep it there.

Type a law, a topic, a person or a province.

What it is

Bill to let judges choose the members of Spain's judicial council

Admitted step 2 of 7 · Rejected

It is a members’ bill. Introduced by parliamentary groups, the Senate, regional governments or citizens. It was introduced on 30 December 2022. Introduced by: Grupo Parlamentario Popular en el Congreso.

Official title: Private member's bill for an Organic Law amending Organic Law 6/1985, of July 1, on the Judiciary, to change the model for the election of the Councillors of the General Council of the Judiciary and to strengthen judicial independence.

Source: Congreso de los Diputados, file 122/000286· updated 11 Nov

Automatic summary, not yet reviewed

  1. The bill would change how the twelve council members drawn from the judiciary are chosen: active judges and magistrates would elect them directly, by personal, equal, direct and secret vote, using a single open list with up to six votes per voter.
  2. The eight members from the jurist group would still be chosen by the Congress of Deputies and the Senate by a three-fifths majority, with over fifteen years of legal experience. People who held public office, government posts or party positions in the previous five years could not be chosen, and candidates would have to appear before both chambers in a public hearing.
  3. It sets rules to avoid blockages: if a chamber fails to elect its members on time, the council would still be formed with the judges' picks and the outgoing members in office, and a new president could be elected if thirty working days pass without an appointment.
  4. Judges who run as candidates for representative public office or accept a political position of trust would have to go on voluntary leave. After leaving that post, they could not return to active service for two years and, on returning, would spend two years in special administrative service assigned by the council.
  5. Experience requirements would rise for certain posts: fifteen years of professional practice for prestigious jurists at the Superior Courts of Justice, and twenty years on the career plus service in a collegial court for magistrate posts at the Supreme Court.
  6. Stronger majorities would be needed to appoint the council's vice president, chamber presidents of the National Court, presidents of the Superior Courts of Justice and Provincial Courts, and a certain Supreme Court magistrate: three fifths. It would also repeal Articles 570 bis and 598 bis, which limit the powers of council members in office after their term ends.

Who it affects

  • Active judges and magistrates: They would directly elect the twelve judicial members of the council and face new leave rules if they take public or political posts.
  • Prestigious jurists: They could apply for the eight jurist seats, with over fifteen years of experience and a public appearance before the chambers.
  • Congress of Deputies and Senate: They would keep choosing the eight jurist members by a three-fifths majority, with new deadlines and rules if they miss them.
  • General Council of the Judiciary (Consejo General del Poder Judicial): Its composition, renewal process and the majorities needed for some appointments would change.

Words worth knowing

Consejo General del Poder Judicial (CGPJ)
The governing body of Spain's judges. It does not decide cases, but appoints and manages judges and magistrates.
Vocal
Each of the twenty members who make up the General Council of the Judiciary.
Excedencia voluntaria
Voluntary leave: a judge temporarily leaves the judiciary and stops receiving a judge's salary.
Servicios especiales
Special service: administrative or government-related posts a judge can hold without hearing cases.
Tres quintos (three fifths)
A reinforced majority: the yes vote of 3 out of every 5 members present.

It summarizes the text as it was introduced. It is written by artificial intelligence and may contain mistakes: the official text is what counts. Read the official text · How we make summaries

Where it stands

How far did it get?

It took 2 of 7 steps. It reached Admitted, and today it is rejected.

  1. Introduced30 December 2022Someone registers the text in the Congreso.
  2. Admitted24 January 2023The Bureau of the Congreso accepts it and, for a members’ bill, the plenary decides whether to consider it.
  3. Amendmentsnot reachedGroups propose changes.
  4. Committeenot reachedA committee goes through the text in detail.
  5. Plenarynot reachedAll 350 deputies vote.
  6. Senatenot reachedThe Senate can pass it, amend it or veto it.
  7. BOEnot reachedIt is published in the Official State Gazette (BOE) and comes into force.
See the 6 official steps on a timeline
Dec 2022Jan 2023Feb 2023Mar 2023Apr 202311. 30 December 2022: Presentación22. 24 January 2023: Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales Publicación desde 24/01/2023 hasta 27/01/202333. 24 January 2023: Calificación44. 27 January 2023: Gobierno Contestación desde 27/01/2023 hasta 08/03/202355. 8 March 2023: Pleno Toma en consideración desde 08/03/2023 hasta 18/05/202366. 18 May 2023: Concluido - (Rechazado) desde 18/05/2023 hasta 22/05/2023

18 May 2023

How did the plenary vote?

More votes against 151 yes · 176 no · 1 abst.

Voted on: Private Member's Bill by the Popular in the Congress Parliamentary Group, Organic, regarding the amendment of Organic Law 6/1985, of July 1, on the Judiciary, for the change of the model for the election of the Councillors of the General Council of the Judiciary and the strengthening of judicial independence.

Source: Congreso de los Diputados, vote 47 of sitting 262· updated 10 Nov

Each dot is a seat. Tap one, or use the arrow keys, to see who it is.

Your province

How did the deputies from your province vote?

And your senators: the Senate does not link its votes to this law in its open data, so we cannot put them side by side here.

Or see how most of each province voted
More details: how each group and each province voted

The groups

Who voted in favour and who against?

In favour, most of Mixto, Ciudadanos, Popular en el Congreso and VOX. Against, most of Euskal Herria Bildu, Republicano, Socialista, Vasco (EAJ-PNV), Gcup-ec-gc and GPlu. 2 deputies voted differently from their group.

By province: in 18 most voted in favour; in 17, against.

Coloured by how most of each province’s deputies voted.

  • In favour: 18
  • Against: 17
  • Tie: 17
Result by parliamentary group
GroupSeatsHow it voted
Euskal Herria Bildu5
4 against · 1 did not vote
Republicano13
12 against · 1 did not vote
Socialista120
1 in favour · 118 against · 1 did not vote
Vasco (EAJ-PNV)6
5 against · 1 did not vote
Mixto11
5 in favour · 1 abst. · 5 did not vote
Ciudadanos9
8 in favour · 1 did not vote
Gcup-ec-gc33
27 against · 6 did not vote
GPlu12
10 against · 2 did not vote
Popular en el Congreso88
88 in favour
VOX52
49 in favour · 3 did not vote

What happens next

What happens now?

It goes no further. A similar one could be introduced later.

Sources

Where does all this come from?

  • The data comes from the open files of the Congreso, the Senate and the BOE, unaltered.
  • Each deputy’s province is the one of their seat on the day of the vote.
  • We only say “passed” or “rejected” when the majority needed is certain; otherwise we say which side had more votes.