Talk:Congress of Hidalgo

Regarding the 90 day residents

I think when it says "residentes en el Estado" in Capitulo Primero->Seccion II->Articulo 32->III, it doesn't just refer to the preceding positions listed, it refers to all citizens of Hidalgo. All residents of Hidalgo, including the preceding positions, must leave their current jobs at least before 90 days from the election date to qualify. I believe the commas imply that. Jason594 (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the preceding positions listed are of the State, except the public servants of the Federation. I suppose therefore if it were all federal public servants, then saying residents of Hidalgo in relation just to them would be redundant. It is already established that they must be residents of Hidalgo, as per Articulo 31. I think these 90 days apply to all of these positions and all residents, excluding the positions listed in other bullet points of which the restrictions may be the same or more stringent. Although saying residents of Hidalgo does seem a bit redundant as already stated in Articulo 31. Jason594 (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

You're right that the first part of the list is state positions, then come the federal employees. The problem is the , residentes en el Estado,. [Reading it again, perhaps the commas are there to indicate that it applies to all of them, not just the feds.] But as you say, why specify that if all candidates have to be residents of the state? A federal employee (or a secretary, or magistrate...) living over the border in Puebla simply wouldn't be eligible. Instinct tells me, however, that requiring all residents of the state to resign from their jobs (the butcher, the baker, the candlestick-maker...) is impractical and not how things are done in practice (I think). Unfortunately, the corresponding w:es article is silent on the matter.

But it's your baby: I only jumped in to lend a hand so the draft had a better chance of not getting rejected next time. Word it in accordance with your convictions and I'll not fiddle with that part again. Moscow Mule (talk) 01:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding, I have reverted it back and keeping it this way unless there are further developments. And also, thank you for expanding this article, so that it is more feasible to qualify for creation. Jason594 (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I do see that in Artículo 35, it states that deputies cannot hold, unless with permission, paid government jobs. It does not state non-governmental jobs nor does anywhere else in Seccion II. It does conflict me, but since it doesn't explicit state it, I have decided to remove the residents part and concur with your changes. I am not that familiar w/ how Mexico functions so I don't have full confidence in my edits. Jason594 (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. And the article is looking very good. When are you thinking of resubmitting it? Moscow Mule (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I believe it is ready to be submitted for creation. Do you have any additions or fixes? Jason594 (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It's looking very complete. Good luck with the resubmission! And I'll give it a read-through. Off the bat, in the 2024 election section, it'd be useful to note the coalition between Morena and Nueva Alianza; shouldn't be too hard to find a reference for that. And I'm in two minds about linking 2024 Mexican local elections in the infobox -- reluctant because the w:es article is much more useful. Perhaps we could copy the results table there over to this article? It's still missing the PR seats, but it looks good otherwise and is sourced. Moscow Mule (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Bis

bis is just a way of inserting an extra article without breaking the numbering sequence. See here. It's valid to leave it in English. (Is that what you meant, or were you struggling with the content of 56 bis?) Moscow Mule (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok thank you for the clarification. I was wondering what the "bis" meant after looking it up and being inconclusive. Jason594 (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Re-election

The constitution says diputados al Congreso del Estado podrán ser electos hasta por un periodo consecutivo, which you have as "can serve for one consecutive three-year term" (and, really, that's what it says). The w:es article, however, has diputados ... podrán ser reelectos hasta por un periodo consecutivo. Here's an opinion piece by a chap planning on standing for la reelección legislativa del distrito que actualmente represento in Pachuca. And here's an article identifying those current members ineligible to stand again under the (rather convoluted) terms in the second half of Art. 33. This article from Nexos talks about one Hidalgo deputy seeking re-election.

El Universal Hidalgo: Diputados que buscan reelección no han pedido licencia.

Silver bullet? El Congreso del Estado aprobó la reforma ... que permite la reelección para presidencias municipales, diputaciones locales, sindicaturas y regidurías en Hidalgo

Sounds to me like deputies can be re-elected for one consecutive term. But, absent a lot of good will and squinting at the text, that's not what the constitution says. Moscow Mule (talk) 04:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello Moscow Mule,

I find, in general, the term limits on Mexican state congresses confusing. In the w:es page, in the infobox, it states the term limit as only 1 term. However, as you stated, the same article says they can be re-elected for 1 consecutive term. Also, bw the LXIII & LXIV legislatures, there are some of the same members, supporting the re-election for 1 consecutive term. What do you think? Jason594 (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I think it's new and everyone's a bit confused. And the wording in the constitution doesn't help. But take a look at Art. 25 bis of the state electoral code (as of 2 Jul 2024), which talks about elección consecutiva hasta por un periodo adicional for deputies. With that, and the other supporting evidence, it's clear they're eligible for re-election. And either that qupte from the electoral code or the "silver bullet" article about the constitutional amendments would serve as a reference. Moscow Mule (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC) (In other news, the president-elect wants to abolish consecutive re-election across the board, so watch this space.)

Changed to "two consecutive three-year terms" since I believe being re-elected for one consecutive term is the same meaning and it's a bit wordy, correct me if I'm wrong if it's a different meaning. Think it's ready, submitting for Afc, any other additions we can make later. Jason594 (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)