Introduction
On June 1, for the first time in Mexico’s history, citizens directly voted to elect members of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN), judges, and magistrates, including those specializing in Competition Economic, Radiodifusion, and Telecommunications tribunals.
Voter Turnout and Its Implications
The voting process was marked by an extremely low turnout, with only 13% (84,266 votes) of registered voters choosing the SCJN members and a similar 12.92% (83,974 votes) selecting the judges for colegiado circuit tribunals.
The election’s significance lies not in bureaucratic succession, but in the control over the Judicial Power and the concept of justice. The question is whether justice should adhere to the Roman ideal, which has over 2000 years of Western juridical history, of “giving to each what they deserve”? Or will justice be subjected to the “will of the people,” the majority’s choice in selecting and appointing new judges?
Populist Rhetoric vs. Judicial Expertise
Hugo Aguilar Ortiz, newly elected SCJN president by popular vote (6.2 million votes, 5.3%), declared that “it will be a SCJN for all. The Court will be close to the citizenry, to the people, and will fulfill its constitutional mandate to provide certainty for all.” However, those closely following the development of specialized justice know that, particularly in telecommunications and radiodifusion areas, the Roman model cannot be so easily discarded with less than 85,000 votes.
Judges and magistrates in these fields require, beyond “democratic legitimacy,” the classical virtues of the Roman tradition: living honestly, not causing harm to others, giving each their due, being independent and impartial, wielding judicial authority, exercising diligence (thoroughly studying each case), and ensuring efficiency, speed, and completeness of judicial proceedings.
The Complexity of Telecommunications and Radiodifusion Sector
The telecommunications and radiodifusion sector is one of the most litigious and technically complex in the country. According to the quarterly reports from the Federal Institute of Telecommunications (IFT), between September and December 2013, the IFT inherited 405 ongoing cases from the defunct Cofetel, including amparo lawsuits, administrative appeals, and nullity lawsuits. By the first quarter of 2023, this number had risen to 823 cases. By March 2025, there were still 638 ongoing cases.
The main topics the Judicial Power has resolved include interconnection disputes, predominance, guidelines, asymmetric regulation, sanctions, concession extensions, constitutional controversies, and many other matters such as the 2.5 GHz band and Digital Terrestrial Television.
Most resolutions, including the most relevant ones like constitutional controversies and amparo lawsuits, have fallen under the Federal Judicial Power through specialized tribunals or the SCJN, as regulated entities are often unsatisfied with the regulator’s decisions.
It is expected that the new Digital Transformation and Telecommunications Agency will not only inherit unresolved IFT cases but also face new litigation due to the legal uncertainty introduced by the recently approved Telecom Law.
Risks of Popular Voting for Judicial Positions
The logic of subjecting judicial organs to popular vote aims to bring justice closer to citizens, but it faces several risks. With less than one in seven citizens participating, can a process deciding key specialized judicial matters with an effective backing of only 13% of the registry be called “popular will”?
The most risky aspect is judicial populism. With judges and magistrates subject to public approval, there’s increased pressure to issue popular resolutions instead of impartial, technical, and agnostic decisions.
Telecommunications and competition tribunals require profound knowledge in network engineering, market economics, regulation, and constant updates. Judicial populism has already displaced jurists prepared since the 2013 telecommunications reform created these specialized tribunals.
To avoid judicial populism, new judges must embrace the principles of Roman law. Beyond technical specialization, specialized justice demands independence and impartiality: not being subject to partisan or corporate interests. Diligence and depth: rigorously studying each economic and technical aspect. Speed and completeness: ensuring prompt, comprehensive, and amparo-resistant resolutions.
Out of 26 candidates proposed by the Senate, only 14 remained to integrate the specialized colegiado tribunals in competition economic, radiodifusion, and telecommunications matters. None achieved a significant percentage, casting doubt on the strength of “popular mandate”.
Ensuring Quality and Legitimacy in Judicial Decisions
The popular renovation of specialized tribunals can be positive if technical excellence is prioritized, demanding formation and experience in economics, engineering, regulation, and perceptual aspects. If judicial independence is protected, avoiding anticipatory renewals or arbitrary attachments that undermine judges’ stability. If transparency is reinforced, by publishing well-founded, expert, and comprehensive motivations to counteract opacity. If performance is evaluated: measuring speed, regulatory objective fulfillment, and resolution quality.
Competition economic, radiodifusion, and telecom justice cannot tolerate populist impulses or political decisions. Its technical complexity and the public interest it protects demand magistrates embodying justice’s timeless virtues: honesty, impartiality, diligence, and efficiency.
The judicial election experiment was a failure in itself. However, it offers the opportunity to restore safeguards ensuring the technical quality and legitimacy (not populist) of judgments: protecting fundamental rights and those with rightful claims in one of the country’s most strategic sectors. With ink-stained robes, not slogans, the new specialized telecom judges will reconstruct a legitimacy eroded by abstention.
