Es Posible
A rule that describes them
Mexico's Congress wants to amend the Constitution so that no one with dual nationality can be president, governor or head of government. Anyone holding a second nationality would have to renounce it before registering as a candidate.
This is how the change looks on Article 82, which sets the requirements to be president. The red is what gets added.
Three senators from the bloc pushing the reform were born in the United States. They are U.S. citizens by birth. If they vote yes, they write themselves into the Constitution as the problem the text describes. And the majority has no vote to spare.
The reform does not describe an abstract enemy. It describes three of the people voting on it.Analysis · Simón Levy
128 seats, zero to spare
The reform passes if the yes votes reach two-thirds of the senators present. Not of all 128. Of those in the chamber.
Here is what almost no one understands about this rule. One bloc senator voting no sinks the reform. One who stays away does not: it lowers the yes, but also lowers the threshold. An absence weighs a third of a no vote. It takes three. Exactly the three born in the United States.
This is the full Senate. Tap any seat: bloc seats go from yes to absent to no. The three marked in red belong to the senators born in the U.S.
Three routes to the same chamber
Born in El Paso, Laredo and Los Angeles. All three reached the same Senate, in the same bloc, to vote on the same reform. Tap a name or a point on the map. Level A · documentary
Three empty seats and the reform fails. All three belong to the people the reform points at.Analysis · Simón Levy
What we assert and what we do not yet
Each name sits on the rung its evidence allows. Not one higher. Tap a name.
They legislate on their own eligibility
Read the rule. Then see who it describes.
The official argument is loyalty: whoever governs may not invoke another nationality nor claim another State's protection. Applied to these three senators, the argument becomes a paradox. They vote a rule that describes them. The most literal conflict of interest possible. Analysis
We do not say voting it is illegal. We say it cannot pass unnoticed.
Born in Texas. Seated in the Senate. Voting that being born in Texas disqualifies you.Analysis · Simón Levy
The question for Washington
Federal law, at 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(4), provides that holding office in a foreign government may be a potentially expatriating act if there is intent to relinquish. Walk the case step by step. Legal analysis · educational tool
In parallel, Mexico's Nationality Law provides for a certificate obtained with express renunciation of any other nationality. A transparency request to the Foreign Ministry would settle whether any of the three already signed it. That document, if it exists, is the hard fact.
I filed. The clock is running.
Time until the floor session:
Sheinbaum announces the bill
She proposes that anyone seeking the presidency or a governorship renounce any other nationality.
Lower house passes it
344 yes, 116 no, 1 abstention. Ten hours of debate.
Senate committees
23 to 9, unchanged, less than 24 hours after the bill arrived.
Senate floor vote
Two-thirds of those present. 86 yes against a threshold of 86.
Petitions in Washington
State Department, Senate Foreign Relations and House Foreign Affairs.
State legislatures
A majority of state legislatures must approve it before it is declared.
Takes effect
It would apply from the 2028 electoral process. It does not affect sitting officials.
On September 27, 2026, I filed five petitions: one with the State Department for each of the three senators, and two letters to the Senate Foreign Relations and House Foreign Affairs committees.
I ask that their conduct be reviewed under 8 U.S.C. § 1481, that it be verified whether any has renounced or still uses a U.S. passport, and that Congress record it in the human-rights reporting on Mexico. They present facts of public record, condition no vote and assert no guilt.
See the filings and their legal basis ↓
Confirmed fact (A): Corral (El Paso, TX), Guadiana (Laredo, TX, 11·22·1994), Sheffield (Los Angeles, CA, 10·30·1966), sitting Morena senators. Reform of Articles 82, 116 and 122; lower house 09·22·2026 (344-116-1); Senate committees 09·23 (23-9); floor 09·29. Bloc 87 (Morena 66, PVEM 14, PT 6, 1 aligned independent). Melgar (PVEM) announced a no vote.
Source (B): Composition of the LXVI Senate; two-thirds of those present, Article 135 of the Mexican Constitution. Coverage: El Informador, Expansión, La Razón, La Jornada, El Financiero, Infobae, El Heraldo de Saltillo. Map: Natural Earth via world-atlas.
Analysis: 8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(4); Afroyim v. Rusk (1967); Vance v. Terrazas (1980); Mexican Nationality Law. Simulator, decision tree and redline are educational tools.
Disputed (C) · unverified (D): Bugarín's birthplace; Maki Ortiz's U.S. residence. Bugarín on leave since 06·17·2026, approved by the Permanent Commission; her alternate, Angélica Montes Rentería, holds the seat and votes.
All findings are presented with full presumption of innocence.
Eleven documents, two countries
Five petitions in the United States, with their source exhibit. Five filings in Mexico. Open each one to see what it is for and which law supports it. The filer's personal details and signatures are redacted.
On September 27, 2026, I filed five petitions with the U.S. Department of State and Congress concerning three senators of Mexico's ruling party: Javier Corral, Cecilia Guadiana and Ricardo Sheffield.
All three were born in the United States: El Paso, Laredo and Los Angeles. On Tuesday they are scheduled to vote that anyone holding another nationality may not govern Mexico. U.S. citizens, in a foreign legislature, voting that U.S. citizenship disqualifies a person from office.
In Mexico I demand nothing the law does not require. I ask a question. I asked each of them, in writing, whether they will vote on their own condition. The decision is theirs; their answer, or their silence, is on record.
No one is accused of a crime. No vote is conditioned. The presumption of innocence and Mexico's sovereign right to legislate are fully respected.
Simón Levy
01State Department · Consular Affairs and Western HemispherePetition for review · Javier Corral Jurado+
Asks the State Department to review whether Corral, a U.S. citizen born in El Paso, by voting as a Mexican senator that U.S. citizenship is incompatible with governing, shows intent to relinquish it. It also asks to verify whether he has renounced before a consul or still uses a U.S. passport, and to preserve the record with the roll call.
8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(4): holding office in a foreign government may be expatriating if there is intent. § 1481(a)(5): formal renunciation before a consular officer. Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) and Vance v. Terrazas (1980): intent must be proven. Right to petition: First Amendment.
02State Department · Consular Affairs and Western HemispherePetition for review · Cecilia Guadiana Mandujano+
The same petition regarding Guadiana, born in Laredo, Texas, on November 22, 1994. The reform closes her path to the Coahuila governorship; voting yes is voting against her own condition.
8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(4) and (a)(5); Afroyim v. Rusk (1967); Vance v. Terrazas (1980); First Amendment.
03State Department · Consular Affairs and Western HemispherePetition for review · Ricardo Sheffield Padilla+
The same petition regarding Sheffield, born in Los Angeles, California, on October 30, 1966, who describes himself as binational.
8 U.S.C. § 1481(a)(4) and (a)(5); Afroyim v. Rusk (1967); Vance v. Terrazas (1980); First Amendment.
04U.S. Senate · Foreign Relations CommitteeLetter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee+
Puts the case on the congressional record. Asks the committee to weigh it in the annual human-rights report on Mexico and to support the State Department review. Congress is the body that oversees the Department.
Committee jurisdiction over foreign relations (Senate Rule XXV). Annual human-rights report: Foreign Assistance Act sections 116(d) and 502B(b) (22 U.S.C. 2151n and 2304). Right to petition: First Amendment.
05U.S. House · Foreign Affairs CommitteeLetter to the House Foreign Affairs Committee+
The same request before the House, so the case is on record in both chambers of Congress.
Committee jurisdiction (House Rule X). Foreign Assistance Act sections 116(d) and 502B(b). First Amendment.
AAttached to the five U.S. filingsExhibit A · Public-record sources+
Collects the source for every fact: reform text and schedule, lower-house and committee votes, Senate composition, each senator's place and date of birth, and the legal basis. It lets the authority verify everything without relying on our word.
Documentary support for facts of public record.
07Sen. Javier Corral JuradoPublic question · Javier Corral Jurado+
Asks in writing, before the vote, whether they will vote on a reform that regulates their own condition, whether they still hold U.S. nationality or have renounced it, and whether they will consider recusing. It compels nothing: it asks them to take a public position. Their answer, or their silence, is on record with a date.
Constitution, Article 8 (right to petition: every public servant must answer in writing). For reference, the Senate Rules provide for recusal on matters of personal interest or benefit (Articles 10(1)(VII) and 19); the letter does not claim a duty to recuse.
08Sen. Cecilia Guadiana MandujanoPublic question · Cecilia Guadiana Mandujano+
Asks in writing, before the vote, whether they will vote on a reform that regulates their own condition, whether they still hold U.S. nationality or have renounced it, and whether they will consider recusing. It compels nothing: it asks them to take a public position. Their answer, or their silence, is on record with a date.
Constitution, Article 8 (right to petition: every public servant must answer in writing). For reference, the Senate Rules provide for recusal on matters of personal interest or benefit (Articles 10(1)(VII) and 19); the letter does not claim a duty to recuse.
09Sen. Ricardo Sheffield PadillaPublic question · Ricardo Sheffield Padilla+
Asks in writing, before the vote, whether they will vote on a reform that regulates their own condition, whether they still hold U.S. nationality or have renounced it, and whether they will consider recusing. It compels nothing: it asks them to take a public position. Their answer, or their silence, is on record with a date.
Constitution, Article 8 (right to petition: every public servant must answer in writing). For reference, the Senate Rules provide for recusal on matters of personal interest or benefit (Articles 10(1)(VII) and 19); the letter does not claim a duty to recuse.
10Foreign Ministry · Transparency UnitTransparency · Foreign Ministry+
Asks whether any of the three obtained the Mexican nationality certificate, which requires a written renunciation of the other nationality. If it exists, it is the hard document: renounced in Mexico while still U.S. citizens in the U.S.
Constitution, Articles 6 and 8; General Transparency Law; Nationality Law, Articles 16 and 17.
11Mexican Senate · Transparency UnitTransparency · Senate+
Requests the three senators' conflict-of-interest declarations, any recusal notice they filed on this reform, and their attendance and vote. It creates a public record of whether they disclosed the conflict.
Constitution, Article 6; General Transparency Law; General Law of Administrative Responsibilities (interest declarations).
The versions filed in the U.S. are the English versions; the Spanish facsimiles are for reference. Receipts will be added to each document once verified. All findings are presented with full presumption of innocence.