But if you believe it is highly likely this would happen (which presumably the CCR do believe, along with various state-defense relevant institutions), how is this whole process you described better than just cancelling them now?
Because it's legal. And what they did now is not legal.
They don't even have may proof that anything that happened in the first round campaign was illegal. The CCR is not even qualified to rule on the facts, on the legality of anything that happened.
So if nothing illegal is proven by any court to have happened, if there isn't even enough evidence to get a tmeporary arrest warrant in his name in a regular court of law, how can we annul the whole electoral process? The costs alone should require a much higher level of justification.
The court has not even ruled that he is not allowed to participate in the re-made elections.
I was mortified that he might win, don't get me wrong. My entire family was going to vote for Lasconi, even those that didn't really like her, just to make sure this idiot madman didn't win. But that doesn't make this decision be any closer to the rule of law.
> Because it's legal. And what they did now is not legal.
I am not an expert on this, so I'm not saying you are wrong, but why would they not have the prerogative to do this? Do you have any sources for that?
I know at least that there is precedent in the EU - Austria cancelled a round of elections in 2016, also for some electoral law incongruities / technicalities (that at least superficially by my knowledge were less serious than this scandal), done also by their constitutional court.
Romanian law also has provisions for ca celling the results of an election. The CCR followed the process, heard challenges to the validity of these results for the first round of elections, ordered a recount, and found based on the recount that all was well, and it certified the results.
What they found afterwards, on their own without any case brought before them, is that the campaign that preceded the first round of elections (which lasted for one month before the first round two weeks ago now) may have been influenced by outside forces, that a candidate may have flaunted campaign finance laws, and similar matters, and that because of this, the entire electoral process is invalid and annulled. The government has to restart this process from scratch, with anyone who wants to participate registering their candidacy again from scratch.
There is no procedure or standard in any law or in the Construction to specify such a process. The Court invented it from whole cloth, based only on a vague/broad power to oversee the election.
I still do not understand how it can be illegal for them to do this, if they do have the prerogative to cancel an election result. (In the sense that you can disagree with a judge's decision, he might even make an objectively wrong decision, but it does not make him taking that decision illegal, just perhaps wrong.)
I am curious to read more about this in the coming days. I do remember previous scandals related to the CCR and their (often said too close) relationship to the parties in power. But I guess in this case I just don't see why their decision would be illegal, and when compared to the alternatives I don't see why it would be wrong.
To also clarify, despite thinking this might be the correct decision, I actually think politically there is a higher probability now of yielding a worse president, since Ciolacu & Simion will probably end up in the secondary, the latter having chances, instead of Lasconi. Not that I think she's the greatest candidate either, but again... compared to the alternatives...
> I still do not understand how it can be illegal for them to do this, if they do have the prerogative to cancel an election result.
It is precisely because of how that power works that what they did yesterday is illegal, in my opinion.
The Court is not basing its decision on whether to validate or invalidate an election result on the Constitution directly, in regular elections. The constitution is too broad and vague for this kind of power. Instead, based on the constition, specific laws that govern how elections are run and at what parts of the process the Court is involved in them were elaborated, and those laws were validated by the Court itself. Specifically, this law is 370/2004 [0].
If the Court can just convene itself by fiat, analyze any evidence it wants, and decide what effect that can have on the election, then why did we need a specific law with specific articles on how election results are validated in the first place?
