Venezuela's ruling party claims victory despite opposition boycott
Venezuela's ruling party is celebrating what it has described as "an overwhelming victory" in regional and parliamentary elections, which were boycotted by the majority of opposition parties.The electoral council (CNE), which is dominated by government loyalists, says candidates for the United Socialist Party of Venezuela's (PSUV) - President Nicolás Maduro's party - won the race for governor in 23 out of the country's 24 states.According to the CNE, the ruling coalition also won 82.68% of the votes cast for the National Assembly, Venezuela's legislative body. The main opposition parties called the elections a "farce". Opposition leader, María Corina Machado, said turnout had been below 15%.
"More than 85% of Venezuelans did not obey this regime and said 'no'," Machado said about those who abstained.Independent journalists who visited polling stations throughout the day said that they saw no queues and fewer people turning out than for the presidential election last July.The CNE meanwhile put the turn-out at 42.6%.The opposition has long questioned the independence of the CNE, which is led by Elvis Amoroso, a former legal counsel to President Maduro.The CNE came in for widespread international criticism in last year when it declared Mr Maduro the winner of the presidential election without ever providing the detailed voting tallies to back up their claim. Venezuela's opposition, meanwhile, published voting tallies it had gathered with the help of official election observers which showed that its candidate, Edmundo González, was the overwhelming winner. Amid the wave of repression and arrests which followed the presidential election, González went into exile to Spain. Machado, who threw her weight behind presidential hopeful Edmundo González after she was barred from running for public office, remained in Venezuela.She was the main advocate for boycotting this Sunday's legislative and gubernatorial elections, saying that the result of July's presidential election should be respected before any new elections are held."We voted on 28 July. On 25 May, we won't vote," she said in a video message shared earlier this month. However, a handful of opposition politicians did run for office, arguing that leaving the field open to government candidates was a mistake.Among them were former presidential candidate Henrique Capriles, Zulia state governor Manuel Rosales and Juan Requesens, who was jailed by the Maduro government for allegedly taking part in a 2018 drone attack on the president. Capriles told Spanish daily El País that for him "voting in Venezuela is an expression of resistance, of resilience, of not giving up".Their decision to stand in the elections was criticised by those calling for a boycott, with Machado saying they had "betrayed the cause".
With turnout low, President Maduro's PSUV party sailed to victory in 23 of the 24 gubernatorial races, up from the 20 governor posts it previously held.According to the preliminary results of the legislative election, the coalition backing President Maduro won an absolute majority of the 285 seats. But three politicians from Henrique Capriles' opposition UNT party were also voted into the National Assembly, including Capriles himself. Maduro has hailed the result as a "victory of peace and stability" and celebrated the fact that his party had regained control of the states of Zulia and, in particular, Barinas, the home state of his predecessor in office and political mentor, Hugo Chávez.Only the state of Cojedes will now be in opposition hands, following the re-election of opposition candidate Alberto Galíndez.
Sunday's vote was preceded by a wave of arrests, which saw more than 70 people with links to the opposition detained for allegedly "planning to sabotage the election".Among those detained is Juan Pablo Guanipa, 60, a close ally of María Corina Machado. The interior minister accused him of being "one of the leaders of this terrorist network" which he claimed had been plotting to disrupt the election by planting bombs at key sites. Machado said his arrest and those of dozens of others was "state terrorism, pure and simple".
Venezuelan voters were also asked to choose representatives for the Essequibo region, a territory long administered and controlled by neighbouring Guyana which Venezuela claims as its own. The territorial dispute has been submitted by Guyana to the International Court of Justice, which had ordered Venezuela to refrain from conducting elections for representatives for the region, an order which the Maduro government defied.As Venezuela is not in control of the Essequibo, there were no polling stations in the territory nor did the people living there get a chance to vote. Instead, voters in a small district expressly created for the purpose on the Venezuelan side of the border were asked to cast their vote, which will have only symbolic value. Neil Villamizar, an admiral loyal to President Maduro, won the unusual vote and will now be declared "governor of Essequibo" by the Venezuelan government even though he has no power or control over the territory, which remains in Guyanese hands. The president of Guyana, Irfaan Ali, has denounced the move as a "scandalous, false, propagandistic, opportunistic" and has said he will "do everything to ensure our territorial integrity and sovereignty is kept intact".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
2 days ago
- Reuters
US judge prevents Trump from invalidating 5,000 Venezuelans' legal documents
May 31 (Reuters) - A federal judge prevented the Trump administration from invalidating work permits and other documents granting lawful status to about 5,000 Venezuelans, a subset of the nearly 350,000 whose temporary legal protections the U.S. Supreme Court last week allowed to be terminated. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco in a Friday night ruling, opens new tab concluded that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem likely exceeded her authority when she in February invalidated those documents while more broadly ending the temporary protected status granted to the Venezuelans. The U.S. Supreme Court on May 19 lifted an earlier order Chen issued that prevented the administration as part of President Donald Trump's hardline immigration agenda from terminating deportation protection conferred to Venezuelans under the Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, program. But the high court stated specifically it was not preventing any Venezuelans from still challenging Noem's related decision to invalidate documents they were issued pursuant to that program that allowed them to work and live in the United States. Such documents were issued after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in the final days of Democratic President Joe Biden's tenure extended the TPS program for the Venezuelans by 18 months to October 2026, an action Noem then moved to reverse. TPS is available to people whose home country has experienced a natural disaster, armed conflict or other extraordinary event. Lawyers for several Venezuelans and the advocacy group National TPS Alliance asked Chen to recognize the continuing validity of those documents, saying without them thousands of migrants could lose their jobs or be deported. Chen in siding with them said nothing in the statute that authorized the Temporary Protected Status program allowed Noem to invalidate the documents. Chen, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, noted the administration estimated only about 5,000 of the 350,000 Venezuelans held such documents. "This smaller number cuts against any contention that the continued presence of these TPS holders who were granted TPS-related documents by the Secretary would be a toll on the national or local economies or a threat to national security," Chen wrote. The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment on Saturday. Chen ruled hours after the U.S. Supreme Court in a different case allowed Trump's administration to end the temporary immigration "parole" granted to 532,000 Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants under a different Biden-era program.
The Independent
2 days ago
- The Independent
Trump-tapped judge blasts White House's ‘utter disregard' over wrongfully deported asylum seeker
Donald Trump 's administration has 'utterly disregarded' a court order for information about a wrongly deported Venezuelan asylum seeker sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, told the man's attorneys to put together a record of the administration's 'lack of compliance' — all but ordering contempt hearings in one of several high-profile legal battles over the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport immigrants. Last month, Gallagher ordered the government to 'facilitate' his release from that country's brutal jail. But when ordered to cough up a status report about his condition, government attorneys essentially only told the court 'we haven't done anything and don't intend to,' Gallagher wrote on Friday. Gallagher previously found that the government's removal of a 20-year-old Venezuelan man named in court documents as 'Cristian' violated a court settlement intended to protect young immigrants who have pending asylum claims. He was deported with dozens of alleged Venezuelan members of the Trend de Aragua gang under the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act in March. The administration was ordered to compile a status report about his 'current physical location and custodial status,' as well as what steps, if any, the government is taking to 'facilitate' his release from the prison, and what the government intends to do when he is returned. Instead, government attorneys not only blew past a deadline to answer, but also 'simply reiterated their well-worn talking points on their reasons for removing Cristian and failed to provide any of the information the court required,' Gallagher wrote. Administration officials 'not only ignore the requirements of this court's orders … but also make no attempt to offer any justification for their blatant lack of effort to comply,' according to Gallagher. The government's response 'adds nothing to the underlying record' and reflects 'zero effort' to comply with court orders, she wrote. She called on Cristian's lawyers to initiate 'a process to create an appropriate record on defendants' lack of compliance with this court's orders' and gave the administration until Monday to cure it. Cristian is one of three men the Trump administration has been ordered to return to the United States following legal battles over their removal. The order for Cristian's return followed the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant living in Maryland who was deported to his home country despite an immigration judge's 2019 order preventing removal from the United States for humanitarian reasons. The Supreme Court unanimously called his removal 'illegal' and similarly ordered the government to 'facilitate' his return. Last week, another judge ordered the administration to 'facilitate' the return of a wrongly deported Guatemalan man sent to Mexico, where he says he survived rape and kidnapping. This week, government attorneys said they would obey the order and arranged a flight to return him. According to a sworn statement from Immigration and Customs Enforcement official Robert Cerna, Cristian was arrested in Texas for cocaine possession in January. The Trump administration has argued that Cristian's removal did not violate a settlement over his removal because his 'designation as an an alien enemy' under the Alien Enemies Act 'results in him ceasing to be a member' of the protected class in the settlement. The administration argues that anyone alleged to be a member of the gang is 'no longer eligible for asylum.' Another court order striking at the president's deportation agenda underscores a growing tension between the judiciary and the administration, which has been repeatedly accused of defying court orders and violating due process protections over his attempts to swiftly remove immigrants. Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to continue blocking immigration officials from summarily deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act jailed in Texas while legal challenges play out. The 7-2 decision — with conservative justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissenting — argues that the immigrants detained in Texas under the controversial war-time law must have 'sufficient time and information to reasonably be able to' get in touch with lawyers and file legal challenges. Trump called the decision a 'bad and dangerous day for America.'
The Guardian
3 days ago
- The Guardian
Supreme court allows White House to revoke temporary protected status of many migrants
The US supreme court on Friday announced it would allow the Trump administration to revoke the temporary legal status of hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States, bolstering the Republican president's drive to step up deportations. The court put on hold Boston-based US district judge Indira Talwani's order halting the administration's move to end the immigration humanitarian 'parole' protections granted to 532,000 people by Trump's predecessor, Joe Biden, potentially exposing many of them to rapid removal from the country, while the detailed case plays out in lower courts. As with many of the court's emergency orders – after rapid appeals brought the case to their bench – the decision issued on Friday was unsigned and gave no reasoning. However two of the court's three liberal-leaning justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, publicly dissented. The court 'botched' its assessment of whether the administration was entitled to freeze Talwani's decision pending the litigation, Jackson wrote in an accompanying opinion. The outcome, Jackson wrote, 'undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending'. Jackson also said that 'it is apparent that the government seeks a stay to enable it to inflict maximum pre-decision damage.' She added that those living under parole protections in this case now face 'two unbearable options'. One option is to 'elect to leave the United States and thereby, confront 'dangers in their native countries,' experience destructive 'family separation' and possibly 'forfeit any opportunity to obtain a remedy based on their … claims', Jackson wrote. The other option is that they could remain in the US after parole termination and 'risk imminent removal at the hands of government agents, along with its serious attendant consequences'. To Jackson, 'either choice creates significant problems for respondents that far exceed any harm to the government … At a minimum, granting the stay would facilitate needless human suffering before the courts have reached a final judgement regarding the legal arguments at issue, while denying the government's application would not have anything close to the kind of practical impact.' Immigration parole is a form of temporary permission under American law to be in the country for 'urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit', allowing recipients to live and work in the US. Biden, a Democrat, used parole as part of his administration's approach to handling migrants entering at the US-Mexico border. Such a status does not offer immigrants a long-term path towards citizenship but it can typically be renewed multiple times. A report from the American Immigration Council found that halting the program would, apart from the humanitarian effect, be a blow to the US economy, as households in the US where the breadwinners have temporary protected status (TPS) collectively earned more than $10bn in total income in 2021 while paying nearly $1.3bn in federal taxes. Trump called for ending humanitarian parole programs in an executive order signed on 20 January, his first day back in office. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) subsequently moved to terminate them in March, cutting short the two-year parole grants. The administration said revoking the parole status would make it easier to place migrants in a fast-track deportation process called 'expedited removal'. The case is one of many that the Trump administration has brought in an emergency fashion to the nation's highest judicial body seeking to undo decisions by judges impeding the president's sweeping policies, including several targeting immigrants. The supreme court on 19 May also let Trump end TPS that had been granted under Biden to about 350,000 additional Venezuelans living in the United States, while that legal dispute plays out. Jackson was the only justice to publicly dissent then, while House Democrats condemned the supreme court's decision. In a bid to reduce unauthorized border crossings, Biden starting in 2022 offering limited extra pathways to come to the US legally, allowing Venezuelans who entered the US by air to request a two-year parole if they passed security checks and had a US financial sponsor. Biden expanded that eligibility process to Cubans, Haitians and Nicaraguans in 2023 as his administration grappled with high levels of illegal immigration from those countries. The plaintiffs in this case, a group of migrants granted parole and Americans who serve as their sponsors, sued administration officials claiming they violated federal law governing the actions of government agencies. Talwani in April found that the law governing such parole did not allow for the program's blanket termination, instead requiring a case-by-case review. The Boston-based first US circuit court of appeals declined to put the judge's decision on hold and the government appealed. The justice department told the supreme court that Talwani's order had upended 'critical immigration policies that are carefully calibrated to deter illegal entry', effectively 'undoing democratically approved policies that featured heavily in the November election' that returned Trump to the presidency. The plaintiffs told the supreme court they would face grave harm if their parole is cut short given that the administration has indefinitely suspended processing their pending applications for asylum and other immigration relief. They said they would be separated from their families and immediately subject to expedited deportation 'to the same despotic and unstable countries from which they fled, where many will face serious risks of danger, persecution and even death'. Reuters contributed reporting
