Introduction
The upcoming election for judges and magistrates is rapidly approaching, despite international warnings and well-reasoned opposition from respected experts and academics within our country. In just 20 days, we will witness an election fraught with numerous flaws: lack of legal and procedural certainty in the selection process, as it will be functionaries from the INE, not citizens, who count the votes. Instead of 1.5 million Mexicans tallying the ballots, only district officials will do so.
The Election Process and Its Issues
Ballots will not be counted on-site but at federal district councils, with assistance from local institutes and others. This process has already been scrutinized in various platforms by colleagues and experts.
The election will introduce significant issues in the formation and administration of justice for our nation. For instance, the complaint that the judiciary modifying laws passed by Congress will lose legitimacy, and as a result, elected judges will acquire the same legitimacy as legislators or the executive to contest laws based on political will rather than legal grounds.
By tying judges and magistrates to their electoral districts, they will become part of local justice, undermining the distinction and healthy practice that separates local from federal jurisdiction. Furthermore, binding judges and magistrates to a territorial scope will prevent them from changing assignments if their lives or professional safety is threatened.
A More Concerning Aspect
While there are already commendable efforts for reflection and assertiveness outside of Mexico City, such as a weekly program in Mérida, Yucatán, hosted by Gastón Lamberry with Federico Berrueto and Dulce María Sauri, a former Yucatán governor, senator, and PRI immediate successor to Vicente Fox. In the previous program, Diego Valadez was a guest, offering insightful and profound reflections.
Valadez’s argument, which warrants concern and reflection due to its delicate nature and potential consequences, was highlighted. He illustrated the colossal failure and deception of the June 1 election (paraphrased from memory).
Valadez described a scenario where 10% of the electorate (approximately 10 million people nationwide) casts their votes, each receiving six ballots with numerous options (over 300) for all contested positions. Voters must choose from these 37 options, resulting in 60 million ballots. If all 10 million voters participate, there will be 2.22 billion votes to count. However, these won’t be tallied by the 1.5 million citizens participating in the common federal election but rather by the 7,219 employees (2,119 local institute staff and 5,100 district council employees) over ten days.
This scenario raises serious questions about the election’s integrity, suggesting that results may have been predetermined and merely inserted into the system by designated individuals.
Key Questions and Answers
- What are the main concerns surrounding this judicial election? The primary issues include lack of legal and procedural certainty, potential politicization of the judiciary, and questions about the election’s integrity due to the limited number of people counting an enormous volume of votes.
- How will the voting process work in this election? Voters will receive ballots with multiple options for various judicial positions. Instead of citizens counting the votes, INE functionaries will tally them at district councils.
What are the potential consequences of these concerns? Critics fear that the election’s outcome may be predetermined, undermining public trust in the judiciary and democratic processes.
