Requirements to be a Citizen in 1944 Ecuador
On May 28, 1944, a coalition of workers, peasants, Indigenous peoples,1 students, and lower ranking military personnel overthrew the increasingly unpopular presidency of Carlos Arroyo del Río in Ecuador. In what came to be known as the “Glorious May Revolution,” people flooded the streets to demand deep-seated and far-reaching social, political, and economic reforms. It was a time of euphoric optimism that seemed to signal the emergence of new and more inclusive notions of who belonged to the nation. Ecuador, one contemporary author observed, finally “was in the hands of its legitimate owners.”2 This rupture led to an explosion of popular organizing efforts as activists agitated for their concerns. Workers, women, students, peasants, Indigenous peoples, and agriculturalists all held meetings to forward their organizational agendas. This political activism culminated in a constituent assembly that drafted a new constitution that was intended to codify the Revolution’s gains. A key issue in the assembly debates, presented here, concerned how broadly to cast citizenship rights, especially whether or not to extend these rights to women and Indigenous peoples.
The 1944-1945 constituent assembly represented one of the left’s highest points of electoral strength in the country’s history. Socialists held 31 of the assembly’s 98 seats, and communists had another nine. In comparison, the liberals who had previously controlled the government now held only 29 seats. The conservatives fared worse with only 24 representatives. Various interest groups including teachers and labor unions had the right to designate 35 additional “functional representatives” that further fortified the left’s strength in the assembly. Despite leftist domination, all of the delegates in the assembly were men from Ecuador’s privileged white-mestizo class. Notably absent were women, Indigenous peoples, peasants, and representatives of other marginalized sectors of society who had played important roles in the success of the uprising that led to the rewriting of the constitution. Nevertheless, highly contested issues of who would be granted citizenship rights led to lengthy and highly contentious debates. When the assembly promulgated Ecuador’s fifteenth constitution in March 1945, the difficulties inherent in expanding citizenship rights had clearly emerged.
Debates over citizenship have a long history in Ecuador. Since gaining political independence from Spain on May 24, 1822, the country has been governed by twenty different constitutions (it was quite common for incoming governments to rewrite constitutions to benefit their economic or political interests). These constitutions commonly limited suffrage based on a person’s age, gender, wealth, and “cultural status,” which generally referred to a person’s ability to read and write. To enjoy citizenship rights, the 1830 constitution required a person to be married or older than twenty-two years of age, own property worth at least 300 pesos (about a year's salary for a professional) or be engaged in an independent “useful” profession or industry (it explicitly excluded domestic servants and day laborers), and be able to read and write.3 Unstated but explicit was the requirement that citizens be white males. Although the 1830 constitution declared the government to be “popular, representative, alternative, and responsible,” only the 2,825 people (0.3 percent of the population) who met the stringent citizenship requirements selected the policy makers who ruled over the rest of the country.4 With some minor variations, these factors defined who would enjoy citizenship rights until the late twentieth century. The age requirement fluctuated between eighteen and twenty-one years, the property requirements were eliminated in 1861, the marriage requirement was dropped in 1897, and women were included in 1929. Until 1979, however, constitutions always retained the literacy restrictions.
The government followed a theoretically color-blind model inspired by nineteenth-century liberalism that refused to mention race explicitly, but it was understood (as James Orton, a naturalist from the United States, noted) that “all, except pure Indians, can vote.”5 Even if an Indigenous person learned to read and right and somehow managed to meet the other constitutional requirements of citizenship, a pervasive system of racial discrimination still presented an insurmountable barrier to political participation. Although by 1944, gender and overt economic restrictions on voting had been lifted, most delegates wanted to retain the age and “cultural” restrictions. Few people would argue for giving minors the right to vote, and apparently most delegates still believed Indigenous peoples were the equivalent of minors. Critical observers noted that denying the vote to illiterates was a throwback to (or, perhaps more accurately, a continuation of) debates within the Catholic Church after the European conquest as to whether Indians were inherently inferior, and whether they were redeemable.6 Rather than opening up the body politic, the goal was to use citizenship as a way to “civilize” marginalized populations.
Similar debates also swirled around granting women suffrage rights. In 1929, Ecuador was the first country in Latin America to give women the right to vote in federal elections. Conservative politicians associated women with tradition and religion, and they supported giving women the franchise in order to preempt a nascent feminist movement and to create a bulwark against a growing socialist threat in society.7 Although the leftist Alianza Femenina Ecuatoriana (AFE, Ecuadorian Feminist Alliance) met on July 29, 1944 to select a new board and draft a document detailing their desired societal changes, no woman participated in the 1944-1945 constituent assembly.8 Originally the Confederación de Trabajadores del Ecuador (CTE, Confederation of Ecuadorian Workers) planned to name Communist militant and AFE founder Nela Martínez as the second (after CTE secretary-general Pedro Saad) of six functional deputies to represent workers’ concerns. Other interests kept interfering until finally Martínez was relegated to a minor slot as an alternate who could take a deputy’s seat if that person were not able to attend. Martínez later noted that having women play a role in political power was so far removed from the elite’s consciousness that the Legislative Palace had no restrooms for women, only urinals for men. “Never had they thought that a woman could go to the Legislative Palace,” she observed, “that she could be there discussing political issues with men.”9
Delegates to the 1944-1945 constitutional assembly broadly engaged issues of voting rights that extended well beyond literacy requirements. Socialist delegate Eduardo Ludeña’s proposal to exclude religious and military personnel from the franchise triggered long debates. Some representatives argued that because clergy and soldiers operated within disciplined command structures, they would not be able to exercise their free will while voting and hence should be denied that right. Colonel Carlos Pinto, functional representative for the Army, contended that corruption in the upper echelons of the military made giving soldiers the vote a dangerous move and their independence would be difficult if not impossible to ensure. Others pointed out that such restrictions undermined the idea of universal suffrage. Guillermo Bustamante, functional representative for agriculture, maintained that soldiers’ actions in the May Revolution proved their ability to function independently and therefore they should be trusted with the vote. Communist José María Roura suggested that rather than limiting the actions of individual priests and soldiers, the assembly should place restrictions on the political involvement of religious and military institutions. Finally, the assembly decided to extend the vote to clergy and military personal, even though they still retained the literacy restrictions that excluded Indigenous peoples and other marginalized sectors.10 The assembly’s failure to implement universal suffrage was perhaps one of its greatest and most disappointing failures.
The following document provides direct insights into how elites constructed citizenship rights in twentieth-century Latin America. More broadly, it points to ongoing debates concerning race and gender, particularly in terms of who should belong to the nation. These discussions highlight how contested these notions were, and that even elites did not necessarily universally agree on who should be considered as part of the body politic.
Questions to Consider:
Act No. 68
In accordance with the day's agenda, the discussion of the Constitutional articles continues. The Secretary reads Title IV "on citizenship." It is approved. He then reads Article 32 drafted by the Constitutional Commission that says: "All Ecuadorians older than 18 years who know how to read and write are citizens. Those from Ibero-American countries and Spaniards who meet the requirements of Article 31 are also considered to be Ecuadorian citizens."
The discussion of the first part of the article begins.
The Honorable Cárdenas Ezequiel:12
Mr. President: From my perspective, nationality and citizenship are distinct concepts. One understands by citizenship the situation by virtue of which the State grants an individual the exercise of certain political rights, especially that of suffrage. So much has this point been discussed on the part of several Honorable Deputies that we have reached the conclusion that universal suffrage is an utopia, since it is necessary to discriminate against those physically and morally handicapped. I am in agreement with the age requirements in the Commission's Project because this depends more properly on the physical and intellectual abilities of the person. But regarding the second point, I want to dare to request to the Honorable Constitutional Commission, for an imperative of conscience, that the decree be changed to this form (he reads and presents to the Secretary13). Because to leave the Constitution like this would grant the vote not only to illiterates but also to those who have not met certain illustrative conditions that qualifies them for the function. For that reason, I believe that we should demand that they have finished primary school instead of only knowing how to read and write, because many learn how to stamp their name and therefore meet the conditions to vote.
The Honorable Pacheco León:14
Mr. President: It is not my purpose to make a speech, because I do not know how to make them, neither do I seek to convince you with speeches; I simply want to express my thinking regarding the article that we are discussing. I will intervene in this matter as a Functional Representative for the working classes that constitute most of the Ecuadorian population. To accept this decree as it is would leave the majority of that class on the margins of political rights, because workers are primarily Indigenous or montubios15 who do not know how to read or write. Frankly, it is disgusting if at the same time they are subject to military conscription, taxes, and road fees, they are denied the exercise of their civic rights. I do not want to transplant the postulates of the Russian or Soviet Constitution that gives political rights to illiterates into this one, but yes I want to be clear in my way of thinking on the reach of this Article. I believe that the Honorable Constitutional Commission should have defined political rights to include granting the vote to this majority of the Ecuadorian population.
If it is necessary to exclude them from certain elections, at least they should be allowed to participate in others, such as those of comunas16 and municipal councils. I want to make my opinion clear, in the name of the class that I represent which are again being marginalized as they have been in previous Constitutions.
The Honorable Flor:17
Mr. President: When the Honorable National Assembly desired to make an exception for illiterates, it only and exclusively did so for their participation in the election of municipal councils. It was only to give illiterates practice in voting, and only with the election of municipal councils. This was to be an exception, rather than to become a general rule. It was not the intention of the Constitutional Commission that it become a general principle. All of the Constitutions have required a minimum amount of education, specifically knowing how to read and write, in order to exercise that right. When the moment arrives to consider extending the right to illiterates, it should be considered as an exception and only for municipal councils. But in general, the article should remain as the Commission proposed.
The Honorable Herrería:18
Mr. President: In terms of the article that we are debating, I want to make the following observations. As for the first part regarding the age of 18 years and being able to read and write, I am in agreement with the Honorable Constitutional Commission, because I believe that it would create bigger and more intense problems to give the right of citizenship to those unable to read or write. This can be demonstrated in practice. What I believe is that our legislation should create special organisms in charge of the protection of those people, so that shortly those individuals who do not know how to read or write can make use of citizenship rights through the process of eliminating illiteracy as much as possible.
The Honorable Alvaro:19
Mr. President: The Honorable Pacheco León has already expressed his disagreement with this system of preventing illiterates from voting, and it has been said that the only exception is for the election of municipal councils. As a result, illiterates are not entitled to the vote, to have suffrage rights. Similar to the Honorable Pacheco, I am also against denying the right to vote to those who do not know how to read or write, because those Indigenous peoples and montubios who find themselves in that situation are also subject to taxes and road work requirements and therefore should be considered citizens. For this reason, I want to register my protest against the way this arrangement has been handled, because I believe that this exclusion should not be total. Instead, we should extend election rights to those who are unionized.
The Honorable Bustamante:20
Mr. President: When we discussed giving the vote to military personal, there was concern about the influence that superior officials could exercise over them because of the lack of discipline that granting this right to soldiers could imply. If there were difficulties with that case, we will have even more in granting voting rights to citizens who upon reaching 18 years of age do not know how to read or write, that is to say, to illiterates. Suffrage rights should be a function of highly conscientious citizens who approach the polls to vote for a certain candidate. An individual who does not know how to read could easily be surprised with a change of ballots and as a result, despite a desire to vote for a certain candidate for the Presidency of the Republic or for certain Congressional candidates, be fooled into depositing a ballot with names quite different from his way of thinking. For this reason it is necessary that we consider this point. The man that fulfills his citizenship rights has to go to the polls to exercise that right with full consciousness of his acts. For this reason, I will never agree to illiterates having access to those rights. Besides, this prohibition will provide an incentive for those individuals to learn how to read and write and to be incorporated into the culture and civilization, to be entitled to the exercise of citizenship rights.
The Honorable Silva del Pozo:21
Mr. President: All of the constitutions, except for that of 1869 that granted the vote only to males, have acknowledged the political duties of women.22 Nevertheless, the Council of State has received petitions requesting clarification whether women were entitled to exercise the rights granted in our constitutions. These petitions came from various parts of the Republic and even from outside the country. For the sake of clarity, I would propose the addition of the terms "man or woman" that was in the 1929 Constitution.
The Honorable Galarza Arízaga:23
Mr. President: Two issues are at play in the constitutional decree under discussion. First is a citizen’s political situation in light of the stated requirements, and second the role of this constitutional decree in light of the national culture. As for the first point, the observations and comments made here prove that it is necessary to meet certain requirements, such as being able to read and write, to exercise citizenship rights. Examining our political development illustrates a constant terrible flaw of individuals whose voted are easily influenced. If this happens even to those with a certain amount of education, not to mention those without education, instead of eliminating flaws in the exercise of these rights we would not be forming citizens conscientious of their duties by giving these rights to those who do not know how to read and write.
I believe that at least we have to impose these indispensable conditions on those who participate in such an important act. The other aspect that the Honorable Bustamante already noted is, effectively, that those who do not know how to read or right cannot participate in citizenship rights. This decree provides a powerful stimulus to those interested in the State such as individuals, political parties, or other institutions that participate in the electoral process to mobilize the largest number of their followers through literacy training so that they can participate in the exercise of that right. From the point of view of the preparation of citizens, this decree is especially satisfactory and interesting. For that reason, I support the Article in the form that it has been presented by the Honorable Constitutional Commission.
Discussion is closed and the first part of this article is approved.
Next is the vote on the Honorable Silva del Pozo’s amendment to add the phrase "man or woman" after "all Ecuadorians," but on the request of several Honorable Deputies the Presidency reopens the discussion.
The Honorable Galarza Arízagar:24
Mr. President: I believe that it is not necessary to include "man or woman," because in common usage the word man also includes the concept of woman. Therefore, that clarification is not necessary.
The Honorable Chacón Moscoso:25
Mr. President: The legal interpretation of the term Ecuadorian would include women, that is, it refers as much to the masculine sex as to the feminine one. But there have been doubts in the application of constitutional law. It would be better that the concept be clearly stated in the Constitution. If the Assembly believes that those words should not be included then it should clarify what rights women have to engage in political acts.
The Honorable Idrovo:26
Mr. President: I believe that previously there have been doubts as to this interpretation because women’s rights to vote had not been granted or used. Now, however, we have in this country a precedent. Women have already exercised this right. If we do not expressly deny this right it means that we recognize it. It is not necessary that this clarification be placed in the Constitution; legal precedents should be sufficient to establish that women are fully included in voting and citizenship rights.
The Honorable Vásconez Héctor:27
Mr. President: I also believe that it is not necessary to include the wording "man or woman" because ever since the 1906 Constitution women have been granted the right to vote. This issue will be explicitly laid out in the secondary law.28 Therefore, I do not believe it is necessary to include what the Honorable Silva proposes.
The Honorable Silva del Pozo:29
Mr. President: According to the Civil Code the term "man" can be used universally, but in regards to the 1906 Constitution, many claims were presented to the Council of State and for that reason I believe that this should be clarified in order to avoid new petitions.
Discussion is closed, and the amendment is voted on. The Secretary informs that there are 32 affirmative votes among 63 voters. In response, the Presidency consults the Chamber if this motion could be considered approved, and at the same time requests a definitive clarification on how articles are approved. [Delegates proceed to engage in a discussion on what constitutes a majority to approve measures, finally settling on a simple majority.]
The Honorable Gallegos:30
Mr. President: We need to re-vote to be sure that the Honorable Assembly truly has decided to include the terms "man or woman" in the article as the motion proposed. I support the motion of the Honorable Silva with a slight change in the wording so that the article says "all Ecuadorians without distinction of sex are citizens," etc.
The Honorable Vásconez Cuvi:31
Mr. President: While we were voting some Representatives entered. It would be good to announce again the question that is under discussion and to re-vote, since the new votes could resolve the issue and avoid repetitive discussions on this point under consideration.
The Presidency, at the request of the Honorable Ludeña, reopens the discussion. The Honorable Gallegos formalizes his motion to add the words "without distinction of sex" after the phrase "all Ecuadorians." The motion by the Honorable Gallegos is voted on and approved, and as a result the first part of Article 32 under discussion will say:
"All Ecuadorians, without distinction of sex, older than 18 years, who know how to read and write, are citizens."
The discussion is closed, the Secretary reads the new phrasing, and it is approved. The Secretary reads a proposed amendment by the Honorable Cevallos32 and Idrovos33 to add a second part of Article 32 that says:
"Even those who do not know how to read or write, however, will be able to exercise citizenship rights to elect municipal councils, according to Article 19."
The Honorable Cueva Tamariz:34
Mr. President: In the general pronouncements that were made regarding citizenship and suffrage to the Honorable Assembly, we were already in agreement that illiterates only be given the vote for electing municipal councils. The Commission has taken this approach and is including it in the corresponding chapter, under the Suffrage section that we will consider in due time. This chapter defines citizenship, and establishes the conditions to acquire it, to suspend it, and to lose it. I do not believe that it is proper to place the amendment of the Honorable deputies Cevallos and Idrovo in this section, because this one only defines fundamental aspects of citizenship. Defining this concept in the previous article, specifically that the rights of citizenship are for those who have turned 18 years of age and know how to read and write, the exception is only for suffrage, but not for citizenship in general, with all its duties and rights, because we do not give the right to be elected to those who, without knowing how to read or write, have turned 18 years old. Given that, I agree with the idea of the motion but it needs to be in its proper section, and one that we will probably discuss later today. I believe that this is not the appropriate place to consider that proposal.
The Honorable Cevallos:35
Mr. President: In fact, I agree with what the Honorable Cueva Tamariz states. However, since this part discusses the essence and not function of citizenship, and as it defines the essence of citizenship as meeting the requirements of being 18 years of age and knowing how to read and write, it seems logical to me that when we deal with the essence of citizenship we should consider those aspects related to its essence and not those with the function of suffrage. For that reason allow me to make the amendment. But if the Honorable Assembly believes that this is not the moment to consider it, I abide by its decision.
The Honorable Paredes Julio Enrique:36
Mr. President: Allow me to observe that this is going to be a totally useless debate, because in the mimeographed article that was just distributed I see that this issue is considered in the decree that says: (reads).37 Therefore, I believe that we should set aside this debate for the moment because it deals with the fifth title of the Constitution.
The Honorable Cevallos in agreement with the Honorable Idrovo withdraws the proposed amendment.
[The assembly then engages in a much longer and contentious debate on the second part of the proposed article as to whether those from Spain and other Ibero-America countries should be considered Ecuadorian citizens. After more editing and a final renumbering of the articles in the constitution, Article 15 of the 1945 constitution reads:
All Ecuadorians, men and women, older than eighteen years, who know how to read and write, are citizens.]
Ecuadorian archives and newspapers hold rich sources of information on constitutional debates, but unfortunately little of this is available outside of the country and even less is available in English. The e-archivo ecuatoriano (http://www.yachana.org/earchivo/) is an attempt to make some of this material available to a broader public, and to provide translations of certain texts. One of Ecuador’s most famous novels is Jorge Icaza’s 1934 Huasipungo. It portrays Indigenous peoples through a social realism lens, and is readily available in English as The Villagers, a Novel (Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press, 1964).
Carmen Sarmiento García’s Ecuador: The Indian Women (Princeton, NJ: Films for the Humanities & Sciences, 1997) is a visual examination of life in Ecuador through the eyes of women.
Ecuadorian studies is a quickly growing field of study. For a broad overview of how Indigenous peoples have engaged governing structures since independence, see the case studies collected in A. Kim Clark and Marc Becker, ed., Highland Indians and the State in Modern Ecuador (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2007). Erin E. O'Connor brings a gendered analysis to debates over who should be included in the nation in Gender, Indian, Nation: The Contradictions of Making Ecuador, 1830-1925 (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 2007). For an in-depth study of the political forces that led to the 1944-1945 constituent assembly, see Carlos de la Torre, Populist Seduction in Latin America: The Ecuadorian Experience (Athens: Ohio University Center for International Studies, 2000). Marc Becker examines the roles of leftists in debates over rights for Indigenous peoples in Indians and Leftists in the Making of Ecuador’s Modern Indigenous Movements (Durham: Duke University Press, 2008).
1The use of a capital “I” in reference to Indigenous peoples is intentional and based on (and in respect for) the stated preference of the board of directors of the South and Meso American Indian Rights Center (SAIIC) as a strong affirmation of their ethnic identities.
2Raquel Rodas, Nosotras que del amor hicimos... (Quito: Raquel Rodas, 1992), 60.
3“Constitución de 1830,” in Federico E. Trabucco, Constituciones de la República del Ecuador (Quito: Universidad Central, Editorial Universitaria, 1975), 35.
4Trabucco, Constituciones de la República del Ecuador, 34; Rafael Quintero and Erika Silva, Ecuador: una nación en ciernes, 3 volumes, Colección Estudios No. 1 (Quito: FLACSO/Abya-Yala, 1991), t. 1, 100.
5James Orton, The Andes and the Amazon; or, Across the Continent of South America (New York: Harper & brothers, 1870), 87. Women, of course, were also excluded from the franchise.
6“El voto verbal para analfabetos,” Atahualpa (Quito, Boletín del Instituto Indigenista del Ecuador) 1, no. 4 (January 1945), 3, reprinted from “El voto verbal para analfabetos,” América Indígena 4, no. 4 (October 1944), 251.
7Francesca Miller, "The Suffrage Movement in Latin America," in Confronting Change, Challenging Tradition: Women in Latin American History, ed. Gertrude Matyoka Yeager (Wilmington, Del: Scholarly Resources Incl, 1994), 169.
8“Alizana Femenina Ecuatoriana eligió en reunión de ayer nuevo directorio,” El Comercio, July 30, 1944, 16; “Llamamiento que Alianza Femenina Ecuatoriana dirige a las mujeres del país,” El Comercio, August 8, 1944, 1, 9.
9Ruth Díaz, "Nela Martínez (Programa Número 13)," in Mujeres de Nuestra América, ed. Asdrúbal de la Torre and Francisco Ordóñez A. (Quito: Ciespal, 1994), interview, tape 4.
10“Actas de la Asamblea Constituyente de 1944,” t. 2, 417f (September 5, 1944), Archivo Palacio Legislativo; "La Asamblea Nacional siguió estudiando la expedición de la nueva Carta Política," El Comercio (Quito), September 6, 1944, 3; "La Constituyente continuó tratando sobre el sufragio y sistema electoral," El Comercio (Quito), September 8, 1944, 3, 11; "Varios artículos más de la Constitución fueron aprobados ayer por la Asamblea," El Comercio (Quito), October 18, 1944, 3; "La Asamblea Nacional continuó el estudio de la Constitución Política," El Comercio (Quito), October 27, 1944, 5.
11“Actas de la Asamblea Constituyente de 1944,” t. 5, pp. 1-16 (October 24, 1944), Archivo Palacio Legislativo, Quito, Ecuador. The original Spanish document is available at http://www.yachana.org/earchivo/1944ciudania.php.
12Ezequiel Cárdenas Espinoza, Conservative from the southern highland province of Cañar.
13Unfortunately, the legislative record does not include his proposed revisions in language.
14Neptalí Pacheco León, coastal Communist leader representing the interests of the working class.
15Poor mestizo peasants on the coast who tended to be mobile, migrating among export-oriented plantations during harvests and to urban areas in search of employment. Often spelled montuvio.
16Established by a 1937 law, comunas were local governing structures that administered community resources (often pasture land and water). Comunas were the smallest administrative unit. See Marc Becker, “Comunas and Indigenous Protest in Cayambe, Ecuador,” The Americas55, no. 4 (April 1999): 531-59.
17Manuel Elicio Flor T., Conservative from the northern highland province of Pichincha; Second Vicepresident of the Congress.
18Alejandro Herrería H., Socialist from the coastal province of Guayas.
19Luis F. Alvaro, Communist representing the Indigenous Race. While not an Indigenous person, Alvaro had long worked with Indigenous organizations. He was the designated alternate for long-time Communist leader Ricardo Paredes was who not in attendance for these discussions.
20Guillermo Bustamante, Functional representative for highland agriculture (large landholders).
21Alfredo Silva del Pozo, Liberal from the central highland province of Bolívar.
22The Honorable deputy is mistaken; only the 1883 constitution explicitly restricted citizenship to male. The conservative 1869 constitution was the only one that required citizens to be Catholic.
23Rafael Galarza Arizaga, Socialist from the southern highland province of Azuay.
24Rafael Galarza Arizaga, Socialist from the southern highland province of Azuay.
25Octavio Chacón Moscoso, Conservative from the southern highland province of Azuay.
26Alejandro Idrovo, Functional representatives of coastal students.
27Héctor Vásconez, Liberal from the central highland province of Tungurahua.
28A much more extensive law defining voting rights. See Tribunal Supremo Electoral, Elecciones y democracia en el Ecuador, Volumen 3, Legislación electoral ecuatoriana (Quito: Tribunal Supremo Electoral, 1990).
29Alfredo Silva del Pozo, Liberal from the central highland province of Bolívar.
30Humberto Gallegos G., Conservative from the central highland province of Chimborazo.
31Eduardo Vásconez Cuvi, Liberal from the central highland province of Cotopaxi.
32Gabriel Cevallos G., Conservative from the southern highland province of Azuay.
33Alejandro Idrovo, Functional representative of coastal students.
34Dr. Carlos Cueva Tamariz, Socialist representative for the Universidad de Cuenca.
35Gabriel Cevallos G., Conservative from the southern highland province of Azuay.
36Dr. Julio Enrique Paredes D., Liberal representative for the Universidad Central.
37Unfortunately the legislative record does not record what the deputy read.