---
On Wednesday, the island’s judicial system clarified that the San Juan Court of First Instance has yet to make a decision in case SJ2024CV08226, Aníbal Vega Borges (as electoral commissioner for the New Progressive Party) vs. the State Elections Commission and others.
In a formal announcement, the judicial system stated that although a hearing took place on Tuesday, the case remains under review by Judge Raúl A. Candelario López, meaning no ruling has been issued for either side.
“We want to clarify the information that has been circulated regarding case SJ2024CV08226, Aníbal Vega Borges (as NPP Electoral Commissioner) vs. the State Elections Commission and others. At this time, the Court has not made a decision in this matter,” the judicial body mentioned in a written statement. “Yesterday [Tuesday], the Court of First Instance conducted a hearing where both parties were given the chance to present their arguments, leaving the case pending before the Hon. Raúl A. Candelario López.”
This clarification came in response to statements made by Vega Borges, who claimed earlier on Wednesday that the court had ruled in favor of the NPP regarding the address for receiving ballots for early voting or mail-in voting. Vega Borges indicated that the ruling would permit voters to choose the address for receiving their ballots, whether it be their official address registered with the State Elections Commission (SEC) or a different address.
“The voter’s will is paramount, as it should be,” Vega Borges stated in a written comment. “The judge affirmed that citizens have the sacred right to choose where they receive their ballots, which backs our position.”
The dispute surfaced following a proposal from SEC Alternate Chairwoman Jessika Padilla Rivera to modify the original decision so that ballots would only be dispatched to the SEC-registered address, ruling out alternative addresses, which was contested by the NPP.
Simultaneously, Popular Democratic Party Electoral Commissioner Karla Angleró González submitted a review appeal to the court, arguing that the amendment particularly disadvantaged voters in unique situations, such as those living in lodging facilities and individuals with health issues. Angleró claimed that disallowing the use of alternate addresses would infringe upon the rights of those citizens and urged that the choice to select alternate addresses for receiving ballots be maintained.
