What it is
Bill to bar terrorism convicts from running as candidates
It is a members’ bill. Introduced by parliamentary groups, the Senate, regional governments or citizens. It was introduced on 31 May 2024. Introduced by: Grupo Parlamentario Popular en el Congreso.
Official title: Private member's bill for an Organic Law amending Organic Law 5/1985, of June 19, on the General Electoral Regime, relating to causes of ineligibility.
Source: Congreso de los Diputados, file 122/000110· updated 11 Nov
Automatic summary, not yet reviewed
- The bill adds a new ground of ineligibility: people who have served a sentence for terrorism-related crimes must document, when the candidacy is filed, their rejection of terrorism, their repentance, their apology to victims and their commitment to cooperate with the Justice system. They must also prove they have paid all civil liability and served all accessory penalties.
- Article 46 would also be amended to require these documents to be filed with the candidacy. After the candidacies are published, the Government must check that no candidate falls under the ineligibility grounds and, if so, immediately notify the competent Electoral Board.
- The explanatory statement justifies the reform by the return of terrorism convicts to electoral lists, especially in 2023, and cites Supreme Court and Constitutional Court rulings on banning parties and candidacies that succeed outlawed parties.
- The law would take effect the day after its publication in the Official State Gazette. This is a bill introduced by the Popular Party group in the Congress of Deputies (Congreso de los Diputados), admitted for processing, not an approved law.
Who it affects
- People convicted of terrorism-related crimes who have served their sentence and want to run as candidates: They must document rejection of terrorism, repentance, an apology to victims, cooperation with the Justice system, payment of civil liability and service of accessory penalties; otherwise they are ineligible.
- Parties, federations and coalitions filing candidacies: They must submit the documents proving these candidates' eligibility along with the candidacy.
- The Government: After candidacies are published, it must check that no candidate falls under the ineligibility grounds and notify the Electoral Board.
- The Electoral Boards: They receive the Government's immediate notice about affected candidates.
Words worth knowing
- Inelegible (inelegibilidad)
- A person who cannot be elected to a representative public office.
- Sentencia firme
- A court ruling that can no longer be appealed.
- Responsabilidad civil
- Money the convicted person must pay as compensation for the harm caused.
- Penas accesorias
- Penalties added to the main sentence, such as disqualification from office or from the right to be elected.
- Junta Electoral
- The body that oversees the legality of electoral processes.
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.
- Introduced31 May 2024Someone registers the text in the Congreso.
- Admitted5 June 2024The Bureau of the Congreso accepts it and, for a members’ bill, the plenary decides whether to consider it.
- Amendmentsnot reachedGroups propose changes.
- Committeenot reachedA committee goes through the text in detail.
- Plenarynot reachedAll 350 deputies vote.
- Senatenot reachedThe Senate can pass it, amend it or veto it.
- BOEnot reachedIt is published in the Official State Gazette (BOE) and comes into force.
See the 6 official steps on a timeline
15 October 2024
How did the plenary vote?
Voted on: Private member's bill by the Popular Parliamentary Group in the Congress of Deputies, Organic bill amending Organic Law 5/1985, of June 19, on the General Electoral Regime, regarding the causes of ineligibility.
Source: Congreso de los Diputados, vote 1 of sitting 67· 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
- A Coruña Tie 4 yes · 4 no
- Albacete Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Alicante/Alacant More votes in favour 7 yes · 5 no
- Almería More votes in favour 4 yes · 2 no
- Araba/Álava More votes against 1 yes · 3 no
- Asturias More votes in favour 4 yes · 3 no
- Ávila More votes in favour 2 yes · 1 no
- Badajoz More votes in favour 3 yes · 2 no
- Barcelona More votes against 7 yes · 25 no
- Bizkaia More votes against 1 yes · 7 no
- Burgos Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Cáceres Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Cádiz More votes in favour 5 yes · 4 no
- Cantabria More votes in favour 3 yes · 2 no
- Castellón/Castelló More votes in favour 3 yes · 2 no
- Ceuta More votes in favour 1 yes · 0 no
- Ciudad Real Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Córdoba Tie 3 yes · 3 no
- Cuenca More votes in favour 2 yes · 1 no
- Gipuzkoa More votes against 0 yes · 5 no
- Girona More votes against 0 yes · 6 no
- Granada More votes in favour 4 yes · 2 no
- Guadalajara More votes in favour 2 yes · 1 no
- Huelva More votes in favour 3 yes · 2 no
- Huesca More votes in favour 2 yes · 1 no
- Illes Balears Tie 4 yes · 4 no
- Jaén More votes in favour 3 yes · 2 no
- La Rioja Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Las Palmas Tie 4 yes · 4 no
- León Tie 2 yes · 2 no
- Lleida More votes against 0 yes · 4 no
- Lugo More votes in favour 3 yes · 1 no
- Madrid More votes in favour 20 yes · 14 no
- Málaga More votes in favour 7 yes · 4 no
- Melilla More votes in favour 1 yes · 0 no
- Murcia More votes in favour 6 yes · 4 no
- Navarra More votes against 2 yes · 3 no
- Ourense More votes in favour 3 yes · 1 no
- Palencia More votes in favour 2 yes · 1 no
- Pontevedra More votes against 3 yes · 4 no
- Salamanca More votes in favour 3 yes · 1 no
- Santa Cruz de Tenerife More votes against 3 yes · 4 no
- Segovia More votes in favour 2 yes · 1 no
- Sevilla More votes against 5 yes · 7 no
- Soria Tie 1 yes · 1 no
- Tarragona More votes against 1 yes · 5 no
- Teruel More votes in favour 2 yes · 1 no
- Toledo More votes in favour 4 yes · 2 no
- Valencia/València More votes in favour 8 yes · 7 no
- Valladolid More votes in favour 3 yes · 2 no
- Zamora More votes in favour 2 yes · 1 no
- Zaragoza More votes in favour 4 yes · 3 no
More details: how each group and each province voted
The groups
Who voted in favour and who against?
In favour, most of Popular en el Congreso and VOX. Against, most of Euskal Herria Bildu, Plurinacional SUMAR, Republicano, Socialista, Vasco (EAJ-PNV), Junts per Catalunya and Mixto. 1 deputy voted differently from their group.
By province: in 30 most voted in favour; in 11, against.
Coloured by how most of each province’s deputies voted.
- In favour: 30
- Against: 11
- Tie: 11
| Group | Seats | How it voted |
|---|---|---|
| Euskal Herria Bildu | 6 | 6 against |
| Plurinacional SUMAR | 27 | 26 against · 1 did not vote |
| Republicano | 7 | 7 against |
| Socialista | 120 | 119 against · 1 did not vote |
| Vasco (EAJ-PNV) | 5 | 4 against · 1 did not vote |
| Junts per Catalunya | 7 | 7 against |
| Mixto | 8 | 1 in favour · 5 against · 2 did not vote |
| Popular en el Congreso | 137 | 135 in favour · 2 did not vote |
| VOX | 33 | 33 in favour |
What happens next
What happens now?
It goes no further. A similar one could be introduced later.
The same initiative in the other chamber:
Sources
Where does all this come from?
- Congreso de los Diputados, file 122/000110
Official title, type, author, dates and stage.
Retrieved 11 November 2026
- Congreso de los Diputados, procedure
The date of each step, with its official wording.
Retrieved 13 November 2026
- Congreso de los Diputados, vote 1 of sitting 67
The count and every seat’s vote.
Retrieved 10 November 2026
- 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.