TSE annuls Anthony Garotinho's votes, paving the way for Douglas Ruas to win in the first round

What did the TSE decide about Anthony Garotinho’s votes, and how could that change the result of the Rio de Janeiro governor’s election?

The TSE ruled that votes received by Anthony Garotinho in the Rio de Janeiro governor’s race must be annulled. The court reached a 4–0 decision. Its relator, Floriano Azevedo, said Garotinho had suspended political rights and did not meet the eligibility conditions for 2026. This matters because those votes affected the published election percentages.

Garotinho received 3.17% of the vote despite being ineligible. Douglas Ruas, the PL candidate, finished the first round with 49.27%. If Garotinho’s votes are removed from the valid total, Ruas could pass the threshold needed to win without a runoff. The article says he would be mathematically elected under that calculation.

The election result is not automatically changed by the ruling alone. The TSE still must officially retotal the votes and adjust the result. If that recalculation confirms the new figures, Ruas could be recognized as governor without participating in the second round scheduled for October 25.

What does it mean for a candidate to be ineligible in a Brazilian election?

Being ineligible means a person does not satisfy the legal requirements to compete validly in an election. The restriction can concern the candidate’s legal status, including suspended political rights. When a court confirms ineligibility, the candidate’s votes may be annulled rather than counted as valid votes in the final result.

The article says Anthony Garotinho had been convicted in improbity actions. Floriano Azevedo, the case’s relator, stated that Garotinho’s political rights were suspended and that he did not meet the eligibility conditions for 2026. The TSE therefore treated his candidacy as irregular and annulled the votes he received.

Ineligibility does not necessarily prevent a name from appearing on the ballot immediately. The article explains that candidates may run while their final legal appeals remain unresolved. Once the electoral courts reach a later decision, however, the vote total can be corrected. That is why Garotinho’s votes were initially displayed but later targeted for annulment.

How many votes did Garotinho receive, and what percentage of the total vote did they represent?

The article provides a percentage, not a raw vote count. It states that Anthony Garotinho received 3.17% of the votes in the Rio de Janeiro governor’s election. It also describes this as more than 3% of the total vote. Therefore, the exact number of ballots cast for him cannot be determined from the supplied text alone.

That 3.17% was large enough to affect the result. Douglas Ruas received 49.27% in the first round. Because Garotinho’s votes were included in the initial calculation, Ruas remained below the level described in the article as sufficient for an immediate victory. The disputed votes therefore had direct mathematical importance.

After the TSE annulled Garotinho’s votes, the total must be recalculated. The court still needs to complete the official retotaling. Until that step, the article presents the possible first-round victory as awaiting formal recognition. No absolute vote figure for Garotinho is supplied.

Why was Garotinho allowed to appear on the ballot even though he was later judged ineligible?

The article explains that electoral law allows a person to contest an election until the candidate’s last legal appeals have been exhausted. This rule can let a candidate remain on the ballot while courts are still deciding whether the candidacy satisfies all legal requirements. The initial ballot status therefore may not be the final legal outcome.

That is what happened with Anthony Garotinho. Although he was later judged ineligible, his legal process had not reached its final stage when the election took place. He consequently appeared in the race and received 3.17% of the votes. Those votes were included in the results first published after the election.

The later TSE decision changed their status. The court ruled that Garotinho did not have a regular candidacy and annulled the votes. This shows the difference between being allowed to compete while appeals continue and having votes definitively recognized after the judicial process ends. The TSE must now retotal the election.

How can removing a candidate’s votes turn a second-round race into a first-round victory?

A first-round victory depends on the share of valid votes, not simply the percentage originally published before every legal challenge is settled. If votes assigned to an ineligible candidate are removed, both the total number of valid votes and each remaining candidate’s percentage can change. A candidate just below the winning threshold may then move above it.

The article gives a clear example. Douglas Ruas, the PL candidate, received 49.27% after the first round. Anthony Garotinho received 3.17%, but the TSE later annulled those votes. Without Garotinho’s votes in the calculation, Ruas would be mathematically elected, according to the article, instead of going to a second round.

The change is not complete yet. The TSE must officially retotal the ballots and adjust the election result. If the recalculation confirms Ruas’s majority, he could receive recognition as governor without the runoff planned for October 25. The court’s formal adjustment is therefore decisive.

What is vote retotaling, and why must the TSE officially recalculate the election result after annulling the votes?

Vote retotaling means counting and calculating the election again after a court decision changes which votes are valid. It is more than announcing a legal ruling. Officials must update the totals, percentages, and possibly the winner. This matters because the first result may have included votes later found to be legally unusable.

Here, the TSE annulled Anthony Garotinho’s votes. Those votes had initially been included in the published percentages, where Garotinho received 3.17% and Douglas Ruas received 49.27%. The recalculation must remove Garotinho’s votes and recompute the shares for the remaining candidates. That calculation could place Ruas above the first-round threshold.

The article says the TSE has not yet officially completed this step. Minister André Mendonça said including votes under judicial review does not give them permanent validity, while preserving the possibility of later adjustment. The formal retotaling could therefore replace the runoff with recognition of Ruas as governor.

What role does the Superior Electoral Court play in Brazil’s elections, and how is its authority different from that of ordinary courts?

The Superior Electoral Court, or TSE, is Brazil’s national electoral court. It applies electoral law, reviews disputes about candidates and votes, and can determine whether an election result must be corrected. In this case, it decided that Anthony Garotinho’s votes were invalid and directed the process toward a new calculation.

Ordinary courts handle broad areas of law, such as civil, criminal, or commercial disputes. The TSE has a specialized electoral role. Its authority covers questions such as candidate eligibility, the validity of ballots, and the official calculation of election results. The article illustrates that authority through the court’s 4–0 ruling and its expected retotaling of the Rio election.

The TSE’s decision does not mean every administrative step is finished. The court still must officially retotal the votes before the result changes formally. If the recalculation confirms that Douglas Ruas passed the required level, the electoral authorities can recognize him as governor without a second round.

Key Facts:

📌 The TSE annulled Anthony Garotinho’s votes.

📌 Garotinho received 3.17% of the vote.

📌 Douglas Ruas had 49.27% after the first round.

📌 Ineligibility means failing the legal conditions for a valid candidacy.

📌 Garotinho’s political rights were described as suspended.

📌 The TSE annulled his votes after reviewing his candidacy.

📌 Garotinho received 3.17% of the votes.