Introduction
Imagine your company has been trying for months to collect a debt from a customer. After several reminders, you decide to take the case to civil courts. However, there’s a problem: the judge handling your case was elected by popular vote, and their campaign—barely funded—was backed by the same delinquent customer. The impartiality is compromised from the start.
The Shift in Mexico’s Judicial System
This absurd scenario is no longer hypothetical. Starting June 1, 2025, Mexico will elect its judges through popular vote. What began as a vendetta by a former president now affects the entire Judicial Power, including the Supreme Court. This model shifts legitimacy from the Constitution to public approval.
Impact on Judicial Neutrality
Mexico’s justice system faces its greatest threat in decades: the end of judicial neutrality. The reform not only changes the selection method but also alters the system’s DNA, transforming judicial function into an electoral competition. In this arena, winning is about campaign skills rather than legal knowledge.
By subjecting judges to public scrutiny, the purpose of the Judicial Power is distorted. Law becomes a bargaining chip instead of a guide, and justice gets politicized, installing legal uncertainty.
Warnings Ignored
The government was warned. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the UN, and multiple international voices raised concerns about the institutional regression implied by this reform. They were not heard. The official narrative preferred to interpret general elections as an unrestricted mandate for transforming everything, including aspects that should be shielded from political fluctuations.
Consequences of the Reform
Citizens voted for candidates, not judges or a justice system reconfiguration. The result was a chaotic election marked by ballot confusion and widespread misinformation. An unsought “democratization” imposed from power.
Worse, serving judges were removed before completing their terms. This broke the principle of job stability. Accumulated technical experience was discarded in favor of profiles with political loyalties or manufactured popularity. When legal capacity is most needed, obedience prevails.
Economic Implications
The American Society, in a recent case, postponed announcing a strategic investment in Mexico due to the lack of legal certainty. Why invest in a country where commercial disputes are resolved based on the last election’s outcome?
Moreover, the reform may breach commitments in treaties like the T-MEC by undermining principles of stability, investment protection, and contract fulfillment. It’s not just a technical debate; it’s a warning signal for any trade partner.
The True Dilemma
Yes, combating judicial corruption is necessary. However, the cure should not be more destructive than the disease. Popular election of judges does not ensure independence or improve justice; it guarantees its politicization.
Key Questions and Answers
- Question: Answer: It compromises judicial neutrality, turning justice into a political competition rather than an impartial application of law.
- Question: Answer: The government ignored warnings from bodies like the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the UN, interpreting general elections as a mandate for broad changes, including those shielded from political fluctuations.
- Question: Answer: Companies like the American Society have postponed investments due to the lack of legal certainty created by this reform.
- Question: Answer: Yes, it may violate principles of stability, investment protection, and contract fulfillment in treaties like the T-MEC, sending a warning signal to trade partners.
