The political controversy surrounding the so-called Grandchildren's Law has brought three distinct legal and electoral realities into the same debate: the acquisition of nationality by descendants of Spaniards, the vote of Spaniards residing abroad, and the administrative regularization of immigrants. These are three different levels, with distinct requirements, distinct effects, and also distinct electoral consequences.
In recent days, leaders of the PP and Vox have linked these three elements to a supposed alteration of the electoral census. Alberto Núñez Feijóo has spoken of "manufacturing voters" and "electoral engineering"; Isabel Díaz Ayuso has warned about a possible irregular use of nationality grants; and Santiago Abascal has escalated the accusation to the realm of "electoral fraud". The verification of the data, however, requires separating concepts.
The Grandchildren's Law does not regularize immigrants. The regularization of immigrants does not grant the right to vote in general elections. And the CERA vote is not a foreign vote, but the vote of Spaniards residing abroad. The mixture of these three debates produces a high-impact political conclusion, but not a legally correct conclusion.
What is the so-called Grandchildren's Law
The expression "Grandchildren's Law" does not designate an autonomous law. It is the colloquial name used to refer to a provision included in the Democratic Memory Law of 2022. This provision allows certain descendants of Spaniards of origin to opt for Spanish nationality.
The norm is in line with the Historical Memory Law of 2007, which already opened a path to nationality for descendants of Spaniards affected by exile. The Democratic Memory Law expanded and specified cases. Among them, those born outside Spain of a father, mother, grandfather, or grandmother who had originally been Spanish and had lost or renounced their nationality as a result of exile for political, ideological, belief, or sexual orientation and identity reasons. It also includes other cases linked to Spanish women who lost their nationality due to marriage to a foreigner before the 1978 Constitution and to adult children of those who opted for nationality under previous memory laws.
The instruction of October 25, 2022, from the Directorate General for Legal Security and Public Faith, developed interpretive criteria to apply that provision. That is, we are not facing an informal procedure or a discretionary decision without normative support, but rather a path to nationality provided for in a law approved by the Cortes Generales and developed through an officially published administrative instruction.
Nationality does not mean automatic vote
The first problematic leap in the political debate consists of treating each nationality file as if it were automatically a vote. It is not.
For a person of Spanish descent to be able to vote from abroad, several successive steps must occur. First, they must have the right to opt for nationality. Second, they must initiate the file. Third, they must obtain a favorable resolution. Fourth, they must carry out the corresponding registration in the consular Civil Registry. Fifth, they must appear in the corresponding electoral roll. And sixth, they must effectively vote in a specific election.
The available public figures show precisely this difference between applications, files, granted nationalities, and registrations. Figures exceeding two million applications or appointments have been handled, but that does not equate to two million new voters. So far, just over half a million files have been approved, and effective consular registrations stand at around 300,000. Therefore, the relevant electoral data is not the maximum number of applications, but how many people are finally incorporated into the census and how many of them vote.
The difference is substantial. A raw administrative figure can produce striking headlines, but it does not by itself describe a real electoral impact.
What is the CERA vote
CERA is the Electoral Roll of Absent Residents. It includes Spaniards who permanently reside abroad and are registered as such. They are not foreigners who vote in Spain. They are Spaniards who live outside of Spain.
CERA voters can participate in general, regional, and European Parliament elections, but not in Spanish municipal elections, because in those elections the census works differently. The external vote is incorporated into the general scrutiny after the ordinary count and can be relevant in constituencies where the last seat is very close.
That possibility exists. But data shows that its usual incidence is limited. In the 2023 general elections, the CERA census exceeded 2.3 million voters. However, external participation was around 8%. That is, approximately one in ten resident voters abroad voted.
This data is key to evaluating any impact hypothesis. If, for example, 600,000 new Spaniards were incorporated into the external census before an election, 600,000 votes could not be projected. Applying a participation similar to that observed in 2023, we would be talking about approximately 60,000 effective votes. If a participation of 8% is taken, it would be about 48,000. And these votes are not cast in a single constituency nor do they necessarily go to a single party.
What happened in 2023
The most cited precedent is that of the general elections of July 23, 2023. In that scrutiny, the CERA vote did modify the final distribution of a seat in Madrid. But the change was in favor of the Popular Party.
After the recount of the external vote, the PP snatched a deputy from the PSOE for Madrid. The final result raised the number of seats for the PP and reduced that of the PSOE. This is relevant data because it contradicts the idea that the external vote necessarily operates as a pocket of support for the PSOE.
In other recent elections, the CERA vote did not alter the distribution of seats. In Andalusia, the external scrutiny did not change the final composition of the regional Parliament. In Extremadura, it also did not modify the result. Therefore, the external vote can be decisive in very tight situations, but there is no evidence that it functions as a general mechanism for altering the result.
The key lies in the Spanish electoral system: the distribution of seats is carried out by provincial constituencies. For the CERA vote to change a deputy, it is not enough for there to be many external votes. They must be concentrated in a specific province, affect the last seat, and produce a sufficient variation between the candidacies competing for that last position. This assumption can occur, but it is neither automatic nor massive.
The hypothesis of 600,000 new voters
One of the arguments used in the public debate is the potential growth of the external census as a consequence of the Democratic Memory Law. The hypothesis can be analyzed with numbers.
Let's assume that, before the closing of the electoral roll for a general election, 600,000 new Spanish residents abroad were incorporated. Not all of them would vote. If external participation similar to that of 2023 is maintained, the effective volume would be between 48,000 and 60,000 votes. These votes, moreover, would be distributed by provinces according to electoral assignment rules, by countries of residence, and by heterogeneous political profiles.
The assumption that all or almost all would vote for the PSOE lacks empirical basis. Spaniards abroad do not form a single ideological bloc. There are recent emigrants, descendants of historical emigrants, professional profiles, relatives of exiles, citizens residing in Europe, Latin America, the United States or Asia, and very different socioeconomic realities.
For the thesis of "electoral engineering" to work in mathematical terms, several difficult-to-sustain conditions would have to concur: that the newly naturalized would register en masse, that they would vote in percentages much higher than usual, that they would concentrate their vote in decisive provinces, that they would mostly choose the same party, and that they would do so in a coordinated manner. None of these premises is accredited.
Regularizing immigrants does not grant the right to vote in general elections
The third element mixed into the debate is the regularization of immigrants. Here the legal difference is even clearer.
Regularizing a foreign person means recognizing or granting an administrative situation of residence and, where applicable, work. It can allow them to contribute to social security, sign contracts, access social rights, or leave the informal or underground economy. But it is not equivalent to acquiring Spanish nationality.
To vote in Spanish general elections, one must have Spanish nationality. Foreigners residing in Spain do not vote in general elections simply by being regularized. The suffrage of foreigners is limited to specific cases, mainly municipal elections for citizens of the European Union or nationals of countries with reciprocity agreements, and always with prior census registration.
Therefore, linking an administrative regularization with an alteration of the census for general elections leads to confusion. A regularization can be politically discussed. Its scope, requirements, or labor effects can be debated. But it cannot be presented as a direct mechanism for incorporating new voters into Congress and the Senate.
Three distinct concepts
Verification allows summarizing the debate on three levels.
The Law of Grandchildren is a way of acquiring nationality for certain descendants of Spaniards of origin, framed within the Democratic Memory Law.
The CERA is the census of Spaniards residing abroad. Its members are Spanish citizens and have the right to vote in the electoral processes established by law.
The regularization of immigrants affects the legal residence and, where applicable, the work permit of foreign individuals. It does not by itself grant nationality and does not enable voting in general elections.
Confusion arises when these three levels are presented as if they were part of the same automatic chain: regularization, nationality, census registration, and vote. That chain does not exist in those terms.
How the electoral system is controlled
The Spanish electoral system has administrative and jurisdictional controls. The electoral census is managed by the Electoral Census Office, part of the National Institute of Statistics. Voters can consult and claim their data during the established periods. Electoral boards supervise the process. Parties can appoint auditors and representatives. The general scrutiny is carried out by the competent electoral boards and can be appealed.
In the case of external voting, the procedure is also regulated. Spaniards residing abroad must be registered in the CERA. Electoral documentation is sent according to the foreseen procedure, and the vote can be exercised through the enabled channels. After the reform that abolished the "voto rogado" (requested vote), the participation of residents abroad was facilitated, which explains part of the increase observed in 2023. Facilitating the vote of Spanish citizens residing abroad is not equivalent to manipulating the result.
The existence of specific administrative errors does not allow concluding structural fraud. Every extensive census can contain incidents, and precisely for that reason there are periods of exposure, claim, review, and control. To sustain a complaint of electoral adulteration, it is not enough to point out that the census is growing; it must be proven that this growth is illegal, that it is incorporated fraudulently, and that it alters the result through organized conduct.
The judicial and administrative precedent
The application of the eighth additional provision of the Democratic Memory Law has already been the subject of legal controversy. The 2022 instruction was challenged by sectors opposed to its interpretation, and at least one contentious route encountered the obstacle of the active legitimacy of the appellants. Criminal actions have also been attempted through the route of malfeasance, without there being a known resolution to date that has accredited a scheme of fraudulent granting of nationalities for electoral purposes.
This fact does not prevent technically discussing the norm or its instruction. But it does differentiate a legal discrepancy from an accusation of electoral fraud. One thing is to argue that the administrative instruction interprets the law extensively, and a very different thing is to affirm that there is an operation to manipulate the result of a general election.
The international comparison
Spain is also not an exception in the recognition of nationality ties by descent or by historical reparation. European countries such as Italy, Ireland, Germany, or Portugal have or have had mechanisms of nationality by family origin, foreign registration, or historical restitution. Each system has its own requirements, but the idea of maintaining a legal link with descendants of nationals is not a Spanish anomaly.
What is specific about the Spanish case is its connection with democratic memory laws and with the reparation of situations derived from the Civil War, the dictatorship, and exile. This debate can be ideological, historical, and legal. But it should not be confused with proof of electoral manipulation.
Conclusion: what the data says
The available data does not support the idea of an automatic adulteration of the vote by the combination of the Grandchildren's Law, CERA, and the regularization of immigrants.
First, because the Grandchildren's Law does not convert applications into votes. It converts, in certain cases and after a file, a legal option into Spanish nationality.
Second, because the CERA vote is exercised by Spaniards residing abroad, not regularized foreigners.
Third, because CERA participation is low in relative terms: in 2023, about one in ten overseas voters cast a ballot.
Fourth, because the most relevant precedent of a seat change due to overseas vote in a general election benefited the PP in Madrid, not the PSOE.
Fifth, because the regularization of immigrants does not grant the right to vote in general elections.
And sixth, because for an increase in the overseas census to alter an election, it would have to translate into effective votes, concentrated in decisive provinces and homogeneously oriented towards the same candidacy. This hypothesis is not substantiated.
The political debate can discuss the Democratic Memory Law, the scope of nationality by descent, the sufficiency of consular controls, or the model of overseas voting. But presenting three different legal figures as the same operation of electoral manipulation does not describe how the Spanish electoral system works.
The underlying democratic issue is not that Spaniards residing abroad vote. It is whether political leaders accept that these Spaniards have the same electoral rights as those who live within the country. Trust in the system does not require an absence of control; it requires that accusations of fraud be made with evidence, not with erroneous conceptual associations.
Add ElConstitucional.es as a preferred Google source for free.
Stay informed about all the latest breaking news with the best information. Against disinformation, for democracy and social rights.