Ecuador’s election cell phone ban sparks legal battles, political outrage, and concerns over voter coercion and democratic transparency.

Ecuador’s National Electoral Council (CNE) is under fire for its recent decision to ban cell phones at polling stations during the April 13th presidential runoff election. The measure, introduced as a safeguard against voter coercion, has instead ignited a political storm, with critics decrying it as undemocratic and legal challenges piling up in multiple courts.

Security Concerns or Political Tactic?

The CNE argues that the ban is necessary to protect electoral integrity. The decision was based on intelligence reports from the National Police and the Armed Forces, which claim that in the first round of voting, criminal groups forced voters to provide photographic proof of their ballots. CNE President Diana Atamaint defended the move, stating that while direct evidence of such coercion is scarce, security reports indicate that voters faced threats in certain provinces, including Guayas and Los Ríos.

“It is very difficult to obtain formal complaints because victims fear retaliation,” Atamaint explained. “But we cannot ignore the security risks identified by the authorities.”

The restriction applies from the moment voters present their identification to polling officials until they exit the voting area. Violators could face fines ranging from $9,870 to $32,900 and the potential loss of political rights. However, journalists, political party delegates, and election observers are exempt from the ban.

Fierce Political Opposition

The ban has been met with stiff resistance, particularly from the Citizen Revolution party and its presidential candidate, Luisa González, who accused the CNE of acting in favor of President Daniel Noboa. González has called on her supporters to challenge the restriction, labeling it an “authoritarian” move designed to suppress voter rights.

“This is a dictatorship,” González declared in a radio interview. “They are stripping citizens of their right to document their own votes.”

Other political leaders from her party, including Guayas Prefect Marcela Aguiñaga and Manabí Prefect Leonardo Orlando, have echoed these concerns, calling the ban a “grave setback for democracy.”

Mounting Legal Challenges

Opposition groups have taken their grievances to the courts, filing appeals with three different bodies: the National Electoral Council (CNE) itself, the Electoral Litigation Tribunal (TCE), and the Constitutional Court (CC). The Citizen Revolution-Reto alliance submitted an official challenge on March 18th, arguing that without concrete evidence of voter threats, the measure is unjustifiable.

At the same time, attorney Washington Andrade has filed a constitutional motion seeking precautionary measures to suspend the ban while the court deliberates. “We see this as a serious risk to democracy and electoral transparency,” Andrade stated.

The CNE, however, has stood firm, insisting that the decision was not politically motivated but rather a response to police and military intelligence. “This was not initiated by any political party,” Atamaint clarified. “It was based on reports from security agencies.”

Enforcement Challenges and Uncertain Future

While the CNE maintains its stance, questions remain about the practical enforcement of the ban. Critics argue that election officials lack a clear mechanism to prevent voters from using their phones behind the secrecy screens where ballots are marked.

“Logistically, this will be difficult to monitor without violating voter privacy,” admitted Atamaint, acknowledging that election authorities are still working out enforcement details.

As the April 13th runoff nears, the controversy surrounding the phone ban shows no signs of abating. With González and her allies pressing legal challenges and the CNE holding its ground, the decision’s fate now rests in the hands of Ecuador’s judicial institutions. Regardless of the outcome, the ruling has already deepened political divisions in a closely contested election that could shape the nation’s future.