Page 61 - Anatomy-of-a-Fraud

could take place in some ten communities where the pro-government candidate was
not extremely popular.

Everardo Tomlinson, who had been the Tribunal’s Secretary at the time all the
irregularities took place, continued in office under Quintero.

In an interview published in La Prensa on January 6, 1984, Quintero himself
admitted the existence of less than impartial officials in the Electoral Tribunal. “We
are concerned over official partiality”, he said. “We have already served notice that any
officer of the Tribunal who does not act impartially shall be severely punished”. To
this statement, La Prensa retorted that same day in its column “Hoy por Hoy”:
“Neither warnings nor admonishments will suffice to prevent breaches of impartiality
by officers of the Tribunal. To guarantee that impartiality, offenders must be dismissed
immediately. But the will to do so is lacking or, if it exists, it has not manifested itself
with the required rigor and efficiency”. La Prensa’s words of advice fell on deaf ears
for no officer of the Tribunal was punished, even though some of them refused to carry
out the instructions given by the presiding justice. One example shall suffice to
establish this point.

On June 9, 1984, Quintero ordered E. Malof and E. Lombardo dismissed from
the Returns Board of the Electoral Circuit for the District of Soná. Both officials had
been notoriously partial during the May 6 elections and Quintero sought to remove
them prior to the municipal elections scheduled for June 10. However, this express
written order was not obeyed, and Quintero was reduced to voicing the pathetic
complaint: “Imagine! They do not pay any attention to me. I have authority but no
power”.

We are faced, therefore, with a Tribunal controlled by pro-government forces
not only at its highest levels but also at its lower echelons. It was a Tribunal that could
not ensure fair elections. Its presiding justice admitted as much when he stated to a La
Prensa reporter on April 28, a few weeks before the elections: “I admit that we have
not monitored mid-levels as would be required to guarantee a fair election”. What kind
of “democratic” elections would these be when the head of the body charged with
guaranteeing their honesty publicly acknowledged that he was incapable of doing the
job?

The Electoral Tribunal’s lack of impartiality became evident even before May
6. The most significant instance of political bias prior to the elections was its ruling
against the candidacy of Gilberto Arias Guardia. Arnulfo Arias’s nephew, who was
running for legislator on the ticket of the Nationalist Liberal Republican Movement
(MOLIRENA), one of the parties under the ADO umbrella, from the District of Antón.
Opposition and pro-government parties had challenged more than 20 nominations
based on “dual residence”. All these challenges were set aside, except the one affecting
Arias Guardia, notwithstanding the fact that his candidacy was essentially identical to
the others. “Dr. César Quintero, Presiding Justice of the Electoral Tribunal, deemed,
“deplorable” the fact that Gilberto Arias Guardia is the only one, among all candidates