Introduction
Mexico is set to become the first country in the world to hold popular elections for all its judges, a move by the government aimed at cleaning up a corrupt judicial system. However, critics argue that this could undermine the independence of powers.
Background and Context
Key Figures: The push for this reform originated from former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and was supported by his successor, Claudia Sheinbaum. Both left-wing leaders have accused the judicial power of serving elites and being riddled with corruption, having blocked several of López Obrador’s projects.
Comparison to Other Countries: Similar practices exist in Bolivia, some U.S. states, and Switzerland where judges are elected by the people. However, Mexico’s case is unique due to its scale and the extensive implications for its federal system.
What’s at Stake
Mexico will elect 881 federal positions, including nine Supreme Court justices, and 1,800 local ones. Among the federal positions are 17 magistrates for the Electoral Tribunal and five for the newly created Disciplinary Tribunal, which will oversee judges’ conduct and impose sanctions.
- 386 district judge positions will also be chosen, handling criminal cases and amparo lawsuits.
- 464 circuit magistrates will be elected, serving as the second-level court.
- The remaining 4,000 judges will be chosen in 2027.
Differences from Traditional Elections
Unlike conventional elections, political parties do not participate in these judicial elections. Candidates cannot publicly promote or support each other, though many have been identified as favoring the ruling party or opposition.
Candidates had to finance their campaigns independently, as they could not accept public or private funds. Social media was widely used for outreach.
Selection committees from the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial powers chose the candidates. Elected officials will serve nine-year terms, with the possibility of reelection.
Candidates must be lawyers with a grade-point average of eight or higher, possess good reputation, and not have a criminal record.
Reasons for Polarization
Government’s Perspective: The ruling party claims the judicial system is plagued by impunity, corruption, and nepotism. They accuse certain judges of favoring high-profile criminals.
Opposition’s Perspective: The opposition and some jurists argue that the election will solidify an “authoritarian regime” under the ruling party Morena, which already controls the executive and legislative branches along with most governorships.
“We are moving towards an authoritarian regime, not democratization,” said former Supreme Court magistrate Carlos Soto to AFP.
Critics, including the JUFED association of judges and magistrates, warn that voters will not be choosing candidates based on merit but rather those preselected and supported by Morena, the government, and organized crime.
The NGO Defensorxs published a list of twenty “risky” candidates, including two former lawyers for drug traffickers and an ex-convicted smuggler.
Additional Risks
JUFED’s Concerns: The election jeopardizes the rights of minorities and economic actors, as judges may act based on party loyalties or promoter relationships.
Equis’ Concerns: The NGO Equis, focused on defending women victims of gender-based violence, argues that the candidate selection process lacked proper methodologies to assess their capabilities, knowledge, experience, and integrity.
The process could delay access to justice as the judicial system slows down while a new Supreme Court is formed and other officials, judges, and magistrates take office, according to Luis Fernando Villanueva from Equis’ Legal Area.
