Helena Hime Funari - Graduada em Direito pela FDUSP, mestre pelo DCP-USP, doutoranda por FGV Direito São Paulo e por Yale Law School. Pesquisadora do grupo de pesquisa Judiciário e Democracia (JUDE)
Mestranda em direito pela Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de São Paulo
Júlia Rodrigues dos Santos - Graduada em Direito pela FDUSP, mestranda em direito pela FDUSP (bolsista Capes). Pesquisadora do grupo Constituição, Política e Instituições (copi - USP).
Doutorando em Comparative Constitutional Law em University of New South Wales (UNSW), Doutor em Ciência Política pela Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
The STF is the highest court in the Brazilian justice system; the TSE is the superior court specialized in electoral matters. The literature has characterized their relationship as one of dominance or identity. We argue that their interaction is neither: Brazilian electoral governance operates through multiple judicial interactions whose patterns fluctuate among cooperation, conflict, and accommodation depending on thematic area and the courts’ position in the interactive sequence. This article describes the STF–TSE relationship using a typology and a mapping of salient interaction episodes reported in O Globo (1994–2023). Each interaction was classified by quality (reinforcement, contradiction, inertia, amendment), year, theme, collegiality, formality, and order of action. The results suggest that the TSE tends to react via collegiate decisions, whereas the STF reacts more often and does so more frequently through monocratic rulings. Disputes over integrity and competitor regulation—such as impeachments, challenges to individual politicians, party fidelity rules, and coalition verticalization—tend to generate contradiction and tactical adjustment; citizenship-related topics—such as free transit on election day, biometric regulation, and minority participation—exhibit greater institutional convergence; and system-protection issues—like fake news, threats to democracy, and challenges to the voting system—are characterized by near-unanimous reinforcement. The findings refine prior diagnoses by showing that the STF–TSE relationship is not uniform but structured by thematic and institutional contexts.
References
Arantes, R., & Martins, R. (2022). Does the before influence the after? Career paths, nominations, and votes of the STF justices. Brazilian Political Science Review, 16(3), e0005. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-3821202200030004
Arguelhes, D. W. (2015). Como aumentar a imparcialidade do Supremo em relação ao TSE. In J. Falcão (Org.), Reforma eleitoral no Brasil: legislação, democracia e internet em debate (pp. 79-95). Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira.
Arguelhes, D. W., & Hartmann, I. A. (2017). Timing control without docket control: how individual justices shape the Brazilian Supreme Court’s agenda. Journal of Law and Courts, 5(1), 105-140. https://doi.org/10.1086/690195
Arguelhes, D. W., & Ribeiro, L. M. (2016). Criatura e/ou criador: transformações do Supremo Tribunal Federal sob a Constituição de 1988. Revista Direito GV, 12(2), 405-440. https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6172201617
Arguelhes, D. W., & Ribeiro, L. M. (2018a). Ministrocracia: o Supremo Tribunal individual e o processo democrático brasileiro. Novos Estudos CEBRAP, 37(1), 13–32. https://doi.org/10.25091/S01013300201800010003
Arguelhes, D. W., & Ribeiro, L. M. (2018b). “The Court, it is I”?: ndividual judicial powers in the Brazilian Supreme Court and their implications for constitutional theory. Global Constitutionalism, 7(2), 236-262. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381718000072
Bispo, N. H. (2023). A atuação normativa do TSE e sua relação com o STF: uma relação de simbiose? [Tese de Doutorado, Programa de Pós-graduação em Direito, Universidade de São Paulo]. https://doi.org/10.11606/T.2.2023.tde-22082023-121227
Marchetti, V. (2015). Justiça e competição eleitoral (2ª ed.). Santo André: Editora UFABC.
Moreira, S. T. (2024). Ideologues and strategists? The judicial behavior of Brazil’s Supreme Court justices from 2010 to 2018: an empirical investigation [Tese de Doutorado, Programa de Pós-graduação em Ciência Política, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais].
Mozaffar, S., & Schedler, A. (2002). The comparative study of electoral governance. International Political Science Review, 23(1), 5-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512102023001001
Sadek, M. T. A. (1995). A justiça eleitoral e a consolidação da democracia no Brasil. São Paulo: Fundação Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, Centro de Estudos.
Silva, M. (2018). Mapeando o Supremo: as posições dos ministros do STF na jurisdição constitucional (2012–2017). Novos Estudos CEBRAP, 37(1). https://doi.org/10.25091/S01013300201800010001
