Judicial Elections: Lack of Information Undermines Legitimacy

Web Editor

May 27, 2025

a man with a beard and glasses standing in front of a blue background with the words, el pasonista,

Overview and Key Findings

With less than a week until the election to renew judges, magistrates, and ministers of the Judicial Power, an Enkoll survey released on May 26 reveals a concerning reality. While 86% of respondents claim to know about the upcoming judicial elections, only 48% are aware of the date, and a mere 18% feel well-informed. More strikingly, 77% cannot name a single candidate, indicating an election with no visible competition, public debate, or recognizable profiles.

Despite this widespread ignorance, 72% believe reform is necessary, and 60% trust it will reduce corruption and impunity. This optimism stems from the popularity of President Claudia Sheinbaum, who enjoys an 83% approval rating, even among opposition supporters. Thus, the backing for judicial elections does not originate from technical knowledge or citizen interest but rather from public faith in the president.

Voter Participation and Disinterest

Projected voter turnout is equally alarming. The INE estimates 8% to 15% of the electorate will vote, while Enkoll projects a maximum of 22.9%. Disinterest is attributed to several factors, including widespread ignorance, the complexity of casting votes for up to 40 judicial positions from ten ballots, and growing perceptions that the election is controlled by Morena. Allegations of Morena operatives distributing “accordion” guides indicating preferred candidates further erode the notion of a citizen-driven deliberative process.

The Illusion of Judicial Independence

The core issue lies in the citizenry’s acceptance of the narrative that popular voting ensures judicial independence, elected judges will be more honest, and public will eliminates privileges. However, context and history do not support these assumptions. In the U.S., where judges have been elected by vote, results have been mixed. In Bolivia, blank or null votes comprised 60% in 2011 and over 65% in 2017. Japan’s retention voting is marginal and routine, while Switzerland limits popular elections to certain cantons, with federal judges appointed by the parliament based on partisan quotas.

The Enkoll survey, instead of legitimizing reform, exposes its weakness: attempting to democratize the Judicial Power without critical citizenry, information, or minimal competence conditions. It’s a vertical design disguised as an election, with its institutional viability questioned before the first vote is cast.

The Facade of Judicial Autonomy

Lastly, those advocating for judicial autonomy seem to overlook that it has never truly existed. The ongoing process is not a break from the past but rather the formalization of its longstanding subordination to the Executive. The difference lies in the electoral endorsement and democratic rhetoric surrounding this obedience, not empowering the people but securing political control through electoral legitimacy.

Key Questions and Answers

  • Q: Why is there optimism about judicial elections despite widespread ignorance? The optimism stems from the popularity of President Claudia Sheinbaum, whose 83% approval rating among all demographics, including opposition supporters, underpins public faith in the election process.
  • Q: What factors contribute to low voter turnout projections? Projected turnout is low due to widespread ignorance, the complexity of voting for numerous judicial positions from multiple ballots, and perceptions that the election is controlled by Morena.
  • Q: Can elected judges genuinely ensure greater independence and honesty? Historical evidence from countries like the U.S., Bolivia, Japan, and Switzerland shows mixed results or limited impact on judicial independence from elected judges.