Mexico: An Unprecedented Judicial Election on June 1st
Risks and Concerns: Judicial Independence, Corruption and Organized Crime, and Weaknesses in Institutional Design and Implementation
By Daniel Zovatto (Confidencial)
HAVANA TIMES – The popular election of judges, magistrates, and Supreme Court justices was promoted by former President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador under the premise of bringing the judiciary closer to the people, fighting corruption, and democratizing an institution accused of serving elitist interests.
His successor, President Claudia Sheinbaum, has supported this initiative, stating that the new system will allow for more transparent and legitimate justice.
The reform was approved by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court, despite multiple warnings from national and international experts who questioned its constitutionality and its impact on judicial independence.
Can the popular vote alone guarantee a judiciary that is more ethical, technical, and connected to citizens? Or is this a measure that, under the guise of participation, could open the door to the politicization of the judiciary?
What Will Be Decided This Sunday
Mexican citizens will elect a total of 881 judicial positions nationwide, distributed as follows:
- 9 justices of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation
- 2 magistrates of the Electoral Tribunal
- 15 magistrates of the regional courts
- 5 members of the Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal
- 464 circuit magistrates
- 386 district judges
It is a massive process. More than 600 million ballots were ordered printed, and nearly 84,000 polling stations will be installed across the country. Added to this is the complexity of the ballots, with hundreds of names per district, which threatens to create voter confusion and affect the legitimacy of the outcome.
Risks and Concerns: Judicial Independence, Corruption, and Organized Crime
Criticism of the reform has been swift. The most significant—and serious—concern is the threat to judicial independence.
Organizations such as México Unido Contra la Delincuencia and the Rule of Law Impact Lab at Stanford Law School argue that popular elections could align judges’ decisions not with the Constitution but with the will of the majority or the interests of campaign financiers.
This is where the risk arises of the judiciary being taken over by political, economic, or even criminal actors.
There have already been reports of several candidacies with troubling ties: from former lawyers for drug cartels to ex-judges previously sanctioned for corruption or sexual violence.
A report from the Judicial Electoral Observatory identified at least 130 candidates lacking qualifications and running unopposed, with high chances of being elected.
In response, President Sheinbaum asked the Electoral Tribunal to consider disqualifying candidates linked to drug trafficking. However, the damage may already be done: the opacity of the selection process and the weak vetting of candidates are structural flaws of the new system.
Weaknesses in Institutional Design and Implementation
The design of the process itself is questionable. Although candidates must meet basic requirements—a law degree, good grades, letters of recommendation—there is no transparent, independent, and rigorous technical evaluation mechanism. Selection depends on committees that include the three branches of government, but with little citizen or academic oversight.
Furthermore, campaigns were conducted under highly restrictive conditions: no public or private funding, no access to official media slots, and no ability to purchase advertising. In theory, this aimed to prevent partisanship; in practice, it rendered candidates invisible, weakening the public’s right to an informed vote.
It’s no surprise, then, that polls forecast voter turnout below 20%.
According to data from Enkoll and Consulta Mitofsky, most citizens do not know the date of the election or the candidates, even though they say they support the need to reform the judiciary.
This gap between general support for the reform and widespread ignorance of the process is an alarming indicator.
A Foundational Election or a High-Risk Experiment?
This is undoubtedly a foundational process that will mark a before-and-after moment in Mexico’s judicial history. But its success cannot be measured solely by the holding of elections; it must also be judged by the institutional quality of the process and the outcomes it produces in terms of independence, transparency, and access to justice.
The National Electoral Institute, responsible for organizing the process, has had to manage a tight schedule, new and complex rules, and an increasingly skeptical environment.
This Sunday, June 1, we will evaluate its ability to ensure a trustworthy, peaceful, and orderly election.
From Radar Latam 360, we will be closely monitoring the election process, including the National Electoral Institute’s performance, and participating in analysis on CNN and other media on Sunday.
Also, to keep you properly informed, I will continue to share updates on the development of this judicial election, which, beyond Mexico, offers lessons and warnings for all of Latin America.
The fundamental question that emerges from this unprecedented process—and one that demands an answer—is: Will it consolidate a new model of democratic justice? Or will it become an institutional experiment with dangerous consequences for the rule of law and democracy in Mexico?
First published in Spanish by Confidencial and translated and posted in English by Havana Times.