The president of the (Superior Electoral Court), intends to take advantage of the suspension of the judgment on the censorship of one to try to build an agreement with the other members of the court and reduce the wear and tear caused by the preliminary (provisional) decision that vetoed the publication of the survey that showed a drop in ().
Kassio’s objective is to use minister Estela Aranha’s time to discuss the guidelines that must be followed by research institutes in 2026.
The injunction granted by the president of the TSE, that the research was carried out at the request of Flávio’s pre-campaign, was the target of criticism from various political spectrums, including names on the right such as the presidential candidates () and (Novo).
Behind the scenes, senior Judiciary ministers and advisors also expressed discomfort with the minister’s stance.
Kassio had been adopting a speech that would lead the court with a lower degree of interference in the electoral process. One of his critics even compared censorship with the orders of the minister, of the (Supreme Federal Court), which are usually rejected by the right under the argument of defending freedom of expression.
Within the TSE, there is a reading that the negative reception to Kassio’s injunction even led to a more timid stance by the magistrate in Tuesday’s session. When voting to uphold his decision, he simply read the text of the decision given previously, without making any additional arguments.
Estela Aranha warned that she would ask for more time to analyze the case before the session began. Shortly after voting and before asking if any colleague intended to advance his position, Kassio praised the suspension of the trial that he himself had ordered.
For the judge, the request for review is relevant for the court to reflect on the methodologies and questions applied by the institutes, not on the content of the research.
According to the TSE president’s interlocutors, no decision will be taken by the plenary before the ministers meet with representatives of the institutes, which should happen in June. Likewise, Estela should not formulate her vote or return the case to the collegiate before this stage.
The censored survey showed that Flávio had dropped 6 points in the second round scenario against (PT) after the case “” — with the disclosure to the former banker.
When voting, the president of the TSE reinforced the argument that the research questionnaire had been structured in such a way as to “severely induce a negative perception” in those interviewed in relation to Flávio.
This is because the last of the 48 items in the survey contained the audio in which the senator asks Vorcaro, owner of , for money to finance the film that tells the story of his father, the former president (PL).
In a statement, AtlasIntel defended the scientific rigor of the research and said that the collection of voting intentions took place without the audio being played during the questionnaire. According to the company, the material was only presented to users at a later stage — without the possibility of returning to questions or changing answers already recorded.
During the TSE session, Kassio said that the institutes have technical autonomy to define the methodology, but that “such prerogative does not remove jurisdictional control in the event of signs of distortion”.
Even though there was a majority tendency in the electoral court with Kassio, the reading of the minister’s surroundings is that the request for a view was beneficial to clear the game and enable the articulation of an agreement with peers with the participation of the institutes themselves.
Even members of the TSE who tended to vote with Kassio on the merits would do so in the name of the court’s unity, considered important at this time. According to what they told the Sheet under anonymity, the decision generated an unnecessary crisis for the court — and the construction of an intermediate agreement could be a way to overcome this wear and tear.
The idea is to establish objective benchmarks for decisions of this type. Until now, measures against research were based on criteria such as the lack of registration with the Court, an insufficient number of interviewees or the prior delivery of the questionnaire.
Control over the content of research is rare, according to people who follow the topic. For these interlocutors, establishing a rule could avoid new measures like Kassio’s.
Despite his closeness to the Bolsonaro family, the president of the TSE has said, in private conversations, that the decision was technical and was not intended to benefit Flávio. To an assistant, the minister even said that, if a survey showed respondents a video of Lula being arrested and asked voters about the impact of these images, the understanding would be the same.
Kassio’s idea is to bring together all TSE ministers with representatives from research institutes to listen to companies’ concerns and see if there are any gaps to be filled from a regulatory perspective.
At the court session, other ministers spoke on the topic. expressed concern about the possibility of research including audiovisual material. also stated that it was important to stipulate rules for the electoral process that include research institutes in the debate. He praised the view request.
Minister Floriano de Azevedo Marques stated that the issue is delicate and should be treated with caution. “It’s a matter that will serve as a precedent,” he said.
Experts
Hilton Fernandes, political scientist and professor at the Public Opinion and Digital Media Laboratory at FESPSP (São Paulo School of Sociology and Politics), states that the definition of rules by the TSE could represent a dangerous precedent.
For him, limiting research means reducing information available to voters, while parties continue to have access to their own surveys. According to Fernandes, the TSE should only act upon clear signs of irregularities or, at least, based on a technical opinion from technical entities in the sector, such as Abep (Brazilian Association of Research Companies).
Electoral lawyer Alberto Rollo defends that a parameter be established on the use of video and audio in research. For him, Kassio’s decision was timely.
“What the ministers will do is judge whether this specific research complied with the current rules and set a benchmark, a uniform jurisprudence from now on, on whether or not it can use audio and video”, he says.
Arthur Guimarães and Mariana Grasso collaborated, in São Paulo
