Arguably the single greatest political victory in the history of Brazilian cyberspace, The Clean Slate Law (Lei da Ficha Limpa) was judged on Thursday before the Brazilian Supreme Court. After 11 hours of deliberations, televised live, the Court deadlocked 5-5 (the 11-member court has one vacancy because of a retirement). Most justices agreed that the law is constitutional, except for the sticking point of whether it can be applied this year, having only become law this June.
The Clean Slate Law bans anyone convicted of a serious crime from running for office for 8 years, but there has been debate over the constitutionality of some of its provisions and whether they will apply to the election occuring in less than 10 days. Candidate for Governor, Joaquim Roriz (PSC-DF), brought the lawsuit after the law banned him from running this year because of a prior conviction for corruption.
Read about how Internet activism helped create this law below the fold.
The Clean Slate Law came about because of a provision in the Constitution of Brazil which states that a Lei Popular ("People's Law") can be sent directly to Congress if it can gain the signatures of 1% of the total Brazilian electorate, or currently about 1.3 million people. These signatures have to be distributed across at least five states with each state having 0.3% or more of its electorate sign.
Although the idea for the law itself was developed in 1997, it did not truly gain traction until 2009. Through Avaaz, an activism site, as well as social networks like Facebook (and even Twitter), a massive campaign was waged in support of the new law. Viva a Revolução! The Movement to Combat Electoral Corruption (MCCE) was able to achieve 1.9 million signatures and the law was sent to Congress early this year, where it passed in the Chamber of Deputies by a vote of 388-1 and in the Senate by a vote of 76-0. President Lula signed the Clean Slate Law on June 4th.
As the election drew near and dozens of candidates found themselves being unable to run, doubt was created regarding whether the law violated a clause in the constitution regarding certain types of electoral laws having to be in place one year before an election, and whether its clause applying the same 8-year penalty to a politician who resigned his position in order to avoid judgment was constitutional. Joaquim Roriz appealed the annulment of his candidacy on these grounds, and yesterday the Federal Supreme Court began deliberations on the case, with the outcome set to affect not only Roriz, but all candidates who had been barred.
With only ten members currently seated, the possibility of a tie was forseeable, but the Court made no decisions on how to break the tie beforehand... and once it was known to be knotted up 5-5, there was no way to vote on a tie-breaking method afterwards, without simply creating yet another tie! The President of the Court has the prerogative to break a tie if he chooses to, but apparently not wanting to take the singluar blame for defeating a law with 85% approval in opinion polls, he punted. The court adjourned without making a decision and will meet again only on Monday, just 6 days before the election.
To be continued...