Mexican Judge Elections May Undermine Judicial Independence and Security

Mexico’s Groundbreaking Judicial Election Sparks Controversy and Concerns

In a historic move, Mexico is poised to elect its judges through a popular vote, a decision that has sparked intense debate over its implications for judicial independence and the potential influence of organized crime.

As Mexicans prepare to head to the polls on Sunday, the nation stands on the brink of a significant transformation in its judicial system. For the first time, voters will choose from nearly 8,000 candidates to replace all federal and state judges, placing Mexico among the rare countries that elect rather than appoint their judiciary. NPR’s Eyder Peralta reports from Mexico City on this monumental shift.

The Roots of Reform

This sweeping change stems from a protracted conflict between Mexico’s government branches, tracing back to former President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. He frequently criticized the judiciary as corrupt and nepotistic, and tensions escalated when Mexico’s Supreme Court rejected his proposal to place the National Guard under military control. In response, Lopez Obrador and his party, Morena, pushed for a constitutional amendment to democratize the judicial selection process.

With Lopez Obrador’s popularity and a congressional supermajority, the amendment was easily passed. Claudia Sheinbaum, the new president and a member of the same party, supports this judicial reform.

The Election Process

The upcoming election will resemble a typical voting process, though with a daunting task: voters must select from a vast pool of candidates, including 64 contenders for just nine Supreme Court positions. Many voters remain unfamiliar with the candidates due to limited media exposure and campaign advertisements. The Electoral Commission has provided candidate resumes online to guide voters, but the complexity of the task raises questions about the future composition of Mexico’s judiciary.

Concerns Over Organized Crime Influence

A significant concern is the presence of candidates with alleged ties to organized crime. Civil society groups have identified numerous candidates with potential connections to drug cartels, including a former lawyer for notorious drug lord El Chapo, now running for a judicial position in Sinaloa. The candidate vetting process, hampered by time constraints and procedural irregularities, has drawn criticism from several participants.

Criticism and Outlook

Few experts defend this electoral reform. The change is seen as politicizing the judiciary, which traditionally maintains independence from political influence. A current Supreme Court justice, abstaining from voting, called the reform, “a historic mistake, that it weakens the judiciary, that it cuts into its independence.” Monica Castillejos-Aragon, a former clerk at the Mexican Supreme Court and now a comparative law professor at UC Berkeley, draws parallels to past authoritarian regimes.

Castillejos-Aragon states, “Mexico is just returning to the old days of the authoritarian regime. But Morena was able to develop a more sophisticated system.” She likens the situation to other authoritarian shifts, such as Hungary under Viktor Orban. With the reform enshrined in the constitution, reversing it poses a significant challenge, leaving Mexicans to contend with its long-term effects.